network/trace-path

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

Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is covered there. The description goes further: it discloses that it runs an external binary that must be installed, sends probe packets, has no timeout parameter, and that the 30 s worker limit kills slow traces (30x3 probes can take minutes). Non-responding hops show as '* * *'. This is rich behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loads the core operation and binary distinction, then layers in caveats and routing to siblings. Every sentence adds distinct value; no fluff. Efficient for the amount of information conveyed.

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?

Covers the things an agent needs to call this correctly that aren't in the schema: external dependency requirement, probe-packet behavior, no timeout, worker limit, and the * * * output convention. Routing to ping/nslookup completes the picture. Nothing material is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema documents both parameters. The description reiterates host semantics and the max_hops default/cap, but adds only the worker-limit context, which is already implied in the schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('traces the network path to a host') and distinguishes itself from the similarly-named tracepath by naming the exact external binary used. Sibling differentiation is explicit via 'Use network/ping first... network/nslookup for DNS problems.'

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?

Explicit routing: 'Use network/ping first for basic reachability, network/nslookup for DNS problems.' Also gives concrete guidance on when to lower max_hops and why. This is exactly the when/when-not/alternatives structure.

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