list_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add one genuinely useful nuance — that the 'open' status reflects whether *this server* holds the port, not OS-level state — but it says nothing about error behavior, enumeration scope, or permission requirements for a listing call that an agent must treat as safe.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the verb and resource and then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place with 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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values, yet it still enumerates the key fields to help selection. For a simple zero-parameter reader this is nearly complete; only the lack of annotations leaves safety/permission context unstated.

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 tool takes no parameters (0 required, 0 total), so the schema is trivially complete and the description has nothing it must compensate for. Baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies.

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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (serial ports) and even names the attributes returned, so it is immediately distinguishable from mutation siblings like open_port/close_port. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, but the enumeration intent is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the discovery step before open_port/probe_stlink, but the description never says when to call it or what it replaces. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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