port

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description correctly reinforces 'Read-only' without contradiction. It adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explaining what the tool returns and that 'the exit code is the verdict,' though it does not detail exit-code values or failure modes.

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 critical instruction 'START HERE before editing a file' and then lists the useful outputs. Every clause carries information, and there is no filler.

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?

With only two fully documented parameters, no output schema, and clear read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete for guiding an agent. It lists the categories of information returned and notes the exit-code verdict, though it could say more about how to interpret that exit code.

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 100%, so both parameters are documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying that a file can be the subject. The baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema fully documents parameters.

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 that the tool is the first step before editing a file, returning its route, tier, gates, lessons, and next commands. It distinguishes itself from siblings like route and gate by positioning itself as the entrypoint that surfaces all of those things together, though the name 'port' remains ambiguous without the description.

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?

It gives clear timing guidance: 'START HERE before editing a file.' This tells the agent exactly when to use it. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong enough to guide invocation.

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