list_ports

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals implementation details ('via ss, falling back to /proc/net/tcp') and notes WSL2 behavior, which adds transparency. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects, so it is not fully transparent.

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 is two sentences long, front-loads the core purpose, and includes only useful context. Every clause adds value: the mechanism, the use case, and the WSL2 note. No wasted 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 tool is relatively simple, but with no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., port numbers, format). It also fails to explain the 'distro' parameter. While the purpose and use case are clear, these gaps make the description only partially complete.

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?

There is one optional parameter 'distro' with no schema description. The description does not mention or explain this parameter at all, leaving the agent to guess its meaning and valid values. Given 0% schema coverage, the description should have clarified it.

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 lists TCP ports listening in WSL, using a specific verb ('List') and specific resource ('TCP ports listening in WSL'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on ports rather than processes, files, or system info.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Useful to find where a dev server is reachable (WSL2 forwards localhost to Windows).' This gives context for when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools. Overall, the guidance is clear and helpful.

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