mtr

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description explains the tool's behavior: it combines traceroute and ping, provides per-hop packet loss and latency statistics over multiple probes. This adds value beyond just the tool name. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like network load or permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, an explanatory paragraph, a note about installation, and clear Args/Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has three parameters and no output schema, the description explains the return value (per-hop statistics) and notes the prerequisite. It is fairly complete but could benefit from examples or mention of ICMP usage.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has no descriptions for its parameters (0% coverage). The tool description compensates with a clear Args section that explains each parameter: target as hostname/IP, count as number of pings per hop, and timeout in seconds. This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's type and default values.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool runs MTR for detailed path analysis with statistics. It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('MTR'), and distinguishes from siblings like traceroute by explaining it combines traceroute and ping for per-hop statistics.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides context on when to use MTR ('Better than traceroute for diagnosing intermittent issues') and notes the prerequisite ('Requires MTR to be installed'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to other siblings like batch_ping or ping.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.