traceroute

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=true, but the description does not detail destructive behavior. However, it adds important behavioral context beyond annotations: the tool requires raw sockets, which may not be available in Claude's environment. This transparency about operational feasibility is valuable for an agent deciding whether to invoke the 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 consists of two short sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and method, the second explains the result and a critical limitation. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description adequately explains what the tool does and its result: 'Shows every router between this machine and the target.' It also highlights the limitation about raw sockets. However, it does not describe the output format or provide examples, but completeness is sufficient for this straightforward tool.

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% with all parameters described in the input schema. The description does not add additional semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description adds no extra parameter information.

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 action: 'Trace the network path to a host hop-by-hop using ICMP TTL probes'. It identifies the specific resource (network path) and the method (ICMP TTL probes), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ping_sweep and port_scan by focusing on hop-by-hop tracing.

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 mentions a key limitation: 'Requires raw packet sending — Claude cannot do this.' This gives some guidance on when the tool cannot be used. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide context on prerequisites or typical scenarios.

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