ensure_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It mentions the device requirement and port forwarding goal, but it does not explain side effects, failure behavior if no device is present, whether it merely checks or actively modifies port forwarding, or any permissions required. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely sets up the debugging environment.

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 sentence with no filler, immediately front-loading the key requirement ('Require a connected physical device') and the main action ('ensure the DebugBridge port is forwarded'). It is appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter details, the description is too thin to fully understand the tool's role in a workflow. It does not specify success/failure conditions, preconditions beyond device connection, whether port forwarding is persistent, or how this tool relates to sibling tools like 'get_debug_page' or 'run_flow'. The description only provides a high-level statement without enough operational context.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing to document beyond the schema itself. Per the baseline rule for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate. The description does not add parameter-level detail because none exist.

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 function: it requires a connected physical device and ensures the DebugBridge port is forwarded. The verb 'ensure' and the resource 'DebugBridge port' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'ping' which also deal with device connectivity.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies it is a prerequisite for other debugging operations but does not state when to call it, what conditions warrant its use, or whether there are alternative tools for similar setups. The context signals show many siblings, but the description offers no differentiation.

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