traceroute

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses the read-only nature, that it is not gated by MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE, that count/max_hops are capped low, and that a fixed short per-hop timeout keeps it under RouterOS's ~60s API timeout. It does not mention auth/permission requirements beyond the write-gate note.

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 core behavior is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by parameter caveats and a behavioral note. Every sentence adds information, though the phrasing is somewhat verbose and the parenthetical constant references may be noise for an agent.

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?

An output schema covers the return value (hop list), so the description needn't restate it. Combined with parameter caveats, timeout/runaway protection, and the explicit write-gate note, an agent has everything needed to call this diagnostic tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It documents three of four parameters: `address` (valid IPv4/IPv6 or hostname, validated like ping), `count` (probes per hop, capped), and `max_hops` (capped). Only `device_name` is left unexplained, which is largely self-evident.

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 and resource ("Traceroute to an address from a device") plus the return shape ("returns the list of hops"). It references the sibling `ping` for validation parity but never explicitly contrasts when to choose traceroute over ping, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 clarifies the operational context (not gated by MIKROTIK_ALLOW_WRITE, no confirm/preview needed), which tells the agent how to invoke it. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs the `ping` sibling or other diagnostics, leaving the choice to inference from the tool name.

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