Get open ports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered; the description repeats 'read-only' but adds the genuinely new and important warning that results are untrusted data from scanned systems. It also discloses paging behavior. It stops short of describing result ordering or default page size.

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?

One tightly packed sentence with zero waste: resource and scope first, then the field list, then the optional filter and paging, then the trust warning. Front-loaded and appropriately sized.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully lists the returned fields, and it flags the untrusted-data risk and paging support across all four parameters. Minor gaps are result ordering and whether scanning must have completed before ports exist, but nothing essential to invoking it is missing.

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% and every parameter carries its own description, including the exact-host constraint and the page.next_offset guidance, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description's mention of 'one exact host' and paging only restates what the schema already says, warranting the baseline 3.

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?

Specific verb and resource: reads open ports Sn1per found in a workspace, and it enumerates the returned fields (host, port, protocol, state, service, version). It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_findings or get_subdomains, but the resource is distinct enough that an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'optionally for one exact host' and 'with paging' hint at the filtering and pagination modes. It never says when to prefer this over get_findings or how to choose between a host-scoped and full-workspace call, and no alternatives are named.

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