network/trace-path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only traceroute-style operation and mentions latency measurement, but it does not describe output format, packet protocol, or privilege requirements. Adequate but with gaps.

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?

Two sentences plus a hint, front-loaded with the core definition and no filler. Every sentence adds value: definition, use cases, and a practical alternative.

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 simple two-parameter read-only diagnostic, the description covers what the tool does and when to use it, and the traceroute analogy implies the output shape. It lacks explicit output/return details in the absence of an output schema, but the use cases and hint make it reasonably complete.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (host, max_hops), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, but none is needed given the full schema coverage.

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 ('Traces') and resource ('network path to a host') and anchors the meaning with 'equivalent to traceroute'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling network tools like ping and nslookup.

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 lists diagnostic use cases (routing issues, dropped packets, latency) and directs agents to use network/ping for basic reachability first, implying trace-path is for deeper investigation. This is clear when-to-use and alternative guidance.

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