traceroute_host

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 transparency. It discloses that it uses the system traceroute binary with specific behavior: one probe per hop, 2-second wait, and returns an error (not an exception) if the binary is missing. This covers the main behavioral traits (cross-platform support, timeout handling, error mode). It doesn't mention side effects or network impact, but for a read-only network diagnostic tool, these are minor gaps. The description's detail compensates for the lack of annotations well.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a question to anchor the user, a brief technical implementation note, and then separate Args and Returns sections. It is front-loaded with the key action. Some redundancy exists (e.g., the return structure repeats the schema), but it earns its length by adding behavioral details not in annotations or schema. It could be slightly tighter, but it's efficient overall.

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 that the tool has only 2 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is complete. It explains the parameters with behavioral details not in the schema (clamping, default, input types), describes the return format in full, and covers error handling. The description covers both normal and failure paths. The output schema exists, so not over-explaining return values is appropriate. For a low-complexity tool, this is comprehensive.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must fully explain the parameters. It does: it describes 'host' as 'Hostname, IPv4, or IPv6 address' and 'max_hops' with clamping to 1..30 and a default of 15. This adds the clamping behavior and default value, which are not in the schema (schema only has default: 15 but no min/max). The description also explains the semantics of max_hops in the context of probing. It could further explain that the host parameter can be a domain or IP, but the current description is sufficient.

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 'Trace the network path to a host, hop by hop, with per-hop latency' using a specific verb ('Trace') and resource ('network path to a host'). It differentiates from siblings like ping_host (which tests reachability but not path) and dns_lookup (which only resolves names) by explicitly mentioning per-hop latency and the traceroute binary. The description also answers the question 'Where along the path does traffic slow down or die?', which clarifies its unique diagnostic role.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (when you need to understand the network path hop-by-hop), but it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives. However, the sibling tools are distinct (ping_host, dns_lookup, etc.), and the description's specific focus on path tracing makes the use case fairly clear. It lacks explicit exclusions like 'Do not use for simple reachability testing; use ping_host instead.'

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