check_exposed_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses its limitations (does not distinguish trusted vs. untrusted networks) and advises contextual review. However, it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, though the term 'scan' suggests non-destructive behavior. This is a minor gap, so a 4 is warranted.

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 sentences and is mostly focused, but it includes a somewhat lengthy explanation of the tool's purpose and limitation. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a more compact phrasing could capture the same meaning with fewer words.

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?

The description covers what the tool does (scans ports), what it flags (database/admin ports and 0.0.0.0 bindings), and its contextual limitation (may be fine on isolated hosts). Since an output schema is indicated but not shown, the description need not explain return values. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to understand when and how to use it.

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 the input schema is empty (coverage 100%). There is nothing to explain about parameters, so the description fully satisfies this dimension. The absence of parameter details is not a deficiency.

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 scans running containers' published port bindings and flags known database/admin ports and any 0.0.0.0 bindings. It is specific about the action ('scans', 'flags') and the resource (containers' published ports), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_containers or container_inspect.

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 explains what the tool is meant to catch (services reachable from the network) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It implies a security review context, but there is no direct comparison to sibling tools like scan_image or audit_dockerfile, so guidance is only implicit.

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