open_ports

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

The description explicitly discloses an important behavioral nuance: process information may require privileges and is represented by missing_process instead of being silently omitted. This goes beyond a bare list operation and prepares the agent for a realistic failure mode. No annotations are present, so this disclosure carries useful weight.

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 with no wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a valuable edge-case clarification without redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description covers the core behavior and a significant output nuance. It could be more complete by sketching the typical return fields or noting any prerequisites, but it still gives an agent enough context to invoke the tool confidently and interpret missing_process.

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 single parameter, server, is fully documented in the schema with 'Remote server name from config (optional, runs locally if omitted).' Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much. It adds no extra parameter-level meaning, matching the baseline.

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 and resource: 'List open network ports with associated process information.' It clearly identifies what the tool does and what it returns. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools such as network_scan or processes, so it misses the full differentiation credit.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when local or remote execution is preferred, nor does it explain exclusions such as when to use processes or network_scan instead. The only context is the optional server parameter in the schema, which is not repeated or expanded on.

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