opn_traceroute

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Description mentions tracing path but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., sending packets), permissions required, or that it is a read-only operation. Lacks behavioral context beyond purpose.

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?

Description is extremely concise: two sentences on purpose and usage, plus a clear return format. No extraneous content, front-loaded with actionable information.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and low schema coverage, the description provides general usage context and return structure but fails to document parameter options (protocol, ip_version) that are crucial for correct invocation. Output schema mitigates return understanding but does not compensate for parameter gaps.

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 has 0% description coverage, and description fails to explain parameters (host, protocol, ip_version). No details on valid protocol values (e.g., ICMP, UDP, TCP) or IP versions, leaving the agent without guidance on parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states 'Trace the network path' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tool opn_ping by focusing on hop-by-hop visualization of routing issues.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: diagnosing routing issues, packet drops, or visualizing network hops. However, it does not mention when not to use or suggest alternatives like opn_ping for simple reachability tests.

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