traceroute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it traces and returns hop details, but does not mention side effects (e.g., network probes, potential security implications) or that the operation is read-only. It is adequate but not fully transparent for a networking tool.

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 very concise with only the necessary information, front-loaded with purpose, and uses bullet-like formatting for arguments. No wasted 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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains the return value ('Path analysis with hop-by-hop details'). It covers all essential aspects for an agent to use the tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with a clear Args section explaining each parameter: target, max_hops (default 30), timeout (default 5). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 traces a network path showing each hop, using the verb 'trace' and specifying the resource 'network path'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ping (reachability) and mtr (continuous monitoring).

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?

It provides explicit use cases: understanding network path, identifying latency, finding packet drops. However, it does not mention when to avoid using this tool (e.g., for continuous monitoring use mtr) or alternatives, so it loses a point for lacking exclusions.

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