get_r_report_queries_ports_view

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry all behavioral disclosure. It only reveals that this is a GET request and mentions the endpoint, but it doesn't explain what the response contains, whether it requires special permissions, any rate limits, or how the data relates to ports. This is minimal transparency.

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 short (one sentence), but it lacks structure: it starts with a generic 'Retrieve records' followed by endpoint and parameter instructions. It front-loads the purpose but not enough detail; the information is sparse and not well-organized.

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 complexity (many sibling report query tools, zero schema description coverage, no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. There is no output schema explanation (though one exists, the description doesn't mention what the output is), and an agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly without more detail about parameters and expected data.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no additional meaning for any of the four parameters (body, query, headers, path_params). It only tells the user where to put them (path_params, query, headers) but nothing about expected formats, required fields, or examples. This is a critical gap.

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 states it retrieves records via the endpoint and mentions the resource 'ports view', giving a general sense of the operation. However, it does not specify what kind of data is returned (e.g., open ports per asset) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_r_report_queries_asset_ports_view, which likely serve similar purposes.

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 gives no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only says to provide route IDs, filters, pagination, and headers, which is generic boilerplate. There is no mention of scenarios that would select this tool over the many other report query tools.

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