scan_ports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the operation (scan) and return value (port descriptors with serial, type, output capabilities). However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, nor does it mention any prerequisites like an active connection (only 'connected' as an adjective). This is adequate but 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, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return value. Every sentence is informative and there is no waste, padding, or repetition. Structure is excellent.

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 tool has no parameters and an output schema that likely documents the return fields, the description is fully complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, with no need to detail return structure (handled by schema) or prerequisites beyond the implied connection. This is a self-contained, sufficient description.

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 100% schema coverage (empty schema). The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and there is no parameter meaning to convey. The description correctly implies that the tool requires no additional input.

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 uses a specific verb ('Scan') and clearly identifies the resource ('available output ports on the connected StreamXpress'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'connect' and 'select_port' by focusing on enumeration of ports. This is a clear and unambiguous purpose.

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 implies usage context by mentioning 'on the connected StreamXpress', suggesting it should be called after establishing a connection. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but its complementary role to select_port is evident. This gives reasonable context without explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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