Keel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool wraps the system 'traceroute' command and parses output, which hints at execution and output formatting. However, it lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., network traffic generation), rate limits, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a network diagnostic 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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining implementation. It's front-loaded with the core function, and both sentences earn their place by clarifying what the tool does and how it works. No unnecessary details are included, making it efficient.

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 complexity of network tracing, lack of annotations, no output schema, and low schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, behavioral traits like execution constraints, or output details, which are crucial for effective use. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with two parameters and no structured guidance.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't mention any parameters explicitly, failing to explain 'host' (target address) or 'max_hops' (limit on route steps). Since the schema covers these parameters structurally but without descriptions, the baseline is 3, as the description adds no semantic value beyond the 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's purpose: 'Trace the network route to a host.' It specifies the verb ('Trace') and resource ('network route to a host'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ping' or 'dns_lookup', which also involve network diagnostics but serve different purposes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions wrapping the system 'traceroute' command, which implies it's for network path analysis, but there's no explicit comparison to siblings like 'ping' (for latency) or 'dns_lookup' (for DNS resolution). Without such context, users might struggle to choose the right tool.

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