homebutler

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It mentions 'process information' addition but fails to state privilege requirements (root/admin usually needed), output structure/format, or performance characteristics (e.g., execution speed on busy systems).

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?

Single efficient sentence of 8 words with no redundancy. Front-loaded with verb and subject. However, given lack of annotations and output schema, the extreme brevity leaves critical operational questions unanswered rather than appropriately sized.

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?

Minimum viable for a single-parameter tool, but significant gaps exist: no output schema means return value description is needed but absent, and security-sensitive nature of port inspection warrants privilege disclosure. Sibling differentiation would improve 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?

Schema has 100% coverage with the 'server' parameter well-described. Description adds no parameter context, but baseline is 3 when schema documentation is complete. No mention of local-vs-remote behavior implied by optional server param.

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?

Clear specific verb 'List' with resource 'open network ports' and detail 'associated process information'. While it distinguishes generally from docker/install/alerts siblings, it does not explicitly differentiate from 'network_scan' sibling which may cause confusion.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus 'network_scan' or other inspection tools. No mention of when local execution is preferred over remote, or prerequisites like elevated privileges typically required for process-to-port mapping.

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