Check Port

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

The description discloses that the tool checks listening status and identifies the owning process, adding behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It does not contradict annotations, and it helps the agent understand the tool's capabilities.

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, concise sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and functionality. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no unnecessary information.

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's low complexity, the description is complete for a simple check operation. An output schema exists, so return values are not required in the description. It covers the essential behavioral aspects, though mentioning that it operates locally could be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters. It only mentions 'local TCP port' and 'owning process', but does not clarify the host parameter or provide details on how port and host are used. The param names are clear, but the description adds minimal value.

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 verb 'check', the resource 'local TCP port', and the specific action of checking if it's listening and identifying the owning process. This differentiates it from sibling tools that focus on different resources like files, processes, or cloud services.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, given the absence of similar port-checking tools among siblings, the purpose is self-explanatory, but a clear distinction would improve the score.

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