open_ports

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that no sudo is needed, and that process information is NOT included. This gives the agent a clear behavioral profile (safe, read-only, limited scope). Could mention resource consumption but current info is sufficient for a simple listing.

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?

Three sentences are concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence contributes: what it does, why useful, and a constraint. No unnecessary words. Could be structured slightly better but overall 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 that an output schema exists, the description covers the essential context: listing listening ports without sudo and without process info. It is complete for a simple query tool with no parameters. No major gaps.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage. The description adds value by explaining the output scope (listening ports, no process info) and the absence of sudo requirement. Baseline for zero-param tools is 4, and this description provides adequate context.

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 it lists all ports in LISTEN state waiting for incoming connections. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like active_connections (which lists active connections) and network_interfaces (interfaces). The verb 'listet' and resource 'Ports' are specific.

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 indicates it is useful for seeing services accepting connections and notes no sudo is required. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like active_connections or process_find. Usage context is implied but not contrasted.

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