ecp_network_port_maps

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' implies a read-only operation, but no further behavioral traits are disclosed (e.g., output format, whether it reflects live state, or permission requirements). For a simple no-parameter list tool, this is minimally adequate but adds little beyond the core action.

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 a single, focused sentence with no extraneous words. It front-loads the primary action and scope immediately, making it easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. However, given the existence of ecp_network_domain_port_maps, the description could have explicitly distinguished the account-wide scope from domain-level port maps. It does not describe the response shape, but that is perhaps less critical for a list-all operation.

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 rubric sets a baseline of 4 for no-parameter tools. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the empty schema contains nothing to clarify.

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 action (list) and resource (port mappings), and adds the scope 'on this account,' which indicates account-wide operation. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings but the account-wide wording provides some distinction from ecp_network_domain_port_maps.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the similar siblings ecp_network_domain_port_maps or ecp_network_update_port_maps. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer when to choose it, and it does not mention any exclusions or alternatives.

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