shodan_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool does (returns a list of port numbers) and includes examples of key ports, which adds useful context. However, it lacks details on potential limitations, such as whether the list is static or updated, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps in 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 front-loaded with the core purpose, but it includes a lengthy list of example ports that, while informative, may be excessive for a concise tool definition. Every sentence adds value, but the structure could be more streamlined by integrating the examples more tightly or summarizing them, making it slightly less efficient.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a good overview of purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., list structure, data types) and doesn't address potential errors or behavioral nuances. For a tool with zero structured data, it's adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, as there are none to explain. It provides value by listing example ports, which aids understanding, but since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate, as it compensates well for the lack of schema content.

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's purpose: 'Get a list of port numbers that Shodan crawls on the Internet.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('list of port numbers'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'shodan_protocols' or 'shodan_host_search', which might also relate to port/protocol discovery, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 clear context on when to use the tool: 'Useful for discovering what protocols are monitored' and 'Use this to verify Shodan monitors your target protocol.' This gives practical guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, such as using 'shodan_protocols' for protocol names instead of port numbers, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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