check_ports

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden. It describes scanning and returning a conflict map, implying read-only behavior. However, it does not explicitly state non-destructive nature, but the 'scan' and 'returns' language is sufficient.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences. First covers purpose and files, second covers output and license. 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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions output type (port allocation map with warnings), which is helpful. It could add more detail on map format or error handling, but for a simple tool with no params, it's quite 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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no param info (unnecessary), but mentions file types which provides context. Baseline for zero params is 4.

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 scans all projects for port declarations and detects conflicts, specifying file types. The verb 'scan' and resource 'projects' are specific, and it distinguishes from siblings which focus on other areas like activation, sessions, audits.

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 mentions a prerequisite (Pro license) and implies usage for port conflict detection. It lacks explicit when/not-to-use or alternatives, but given no sibling tool does port checking, it's clear enough.

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