nc_port_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the dependency/fallback behavior ('Uses ncat (nmap-suite) if available, falls back to netcat') and the 'Returns immediately' trait. However, it does not mention that the tool makes network connections to the target, how it handles timeouts, or what a typical result looks like, leaving significant behavioral gaps.

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 succinct and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then implementation details, then parameter descriptions. Every sentence adds value, and it is appropriately sized for a simple utility.

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?

The tool is simple (2 string params, no output schema), but the description omits the return format or result details. It only states 'Returns immediately' without clarifying whether the output is open/closed status per port, a list, or a boolean. Given no output schema, the description should cover this to be fully complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'host: IP or hostname' and 'ports: comma/space-separated ports e.g. '80', '22,80,443'' provide clear format and examples for both parameters, adding meaning beyond the schema's bare property names.

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: 'Check if ports are open/closed on a host.' This specifies the verb (check) and resource (ports on a host), and distinguishes it from sibling port scanning tools by mentioning ncat/netcat and 'Returns immediately,' implying a lightweight connectivity check.

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 implies usage for a quick port check via 'Returns immediately' and the ncat/netcat implementation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like nmap_port_scan or fast_port_scan. No exclusions or comparative conditions are provided, so the guidance is only implicit.

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