sec.listening

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does not say whether this is read-only, whether it requires elevated privileges to resolve per-process ownership, which OSes it supports, or how long it takes. It conveys the concept but not the operational traits that would affect invocation.

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 compact clause with no filler, and the key qualifier (non-loopback exposure) is placed where it will be read. It is terse to the point of being a fragment rather than a sentence, but nothing is wasted.

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 phrase roughly sketches the return shape (per-process listening ports with exposure flags), which matters since there is no output schema. However, it leaves the agent guessing about field names, sorting, and how results are grouped, so it is only minimally sufficient for a zero-param tool with no annotation or output-schema support.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty at 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies for a no-arg tool.

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 names a specific resource and scope: listening sockets enumerated per owning process, with non-loopback exposures flagged. That distinguishes it in practice from net.portscan (remote scanning) and sec.connections (established connections), though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 when-to-use cue, no prerequisites, and no routing against the many adjacent siblings (sec.connections, sec.exposure, net.portcheck, net.portscan). The agent must infer that this is the local-audit option rather than a remote probe.

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