tls_connections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains the internal process: retrieves all TCP/TLS via list_tcp_conns then filters to TLS. It also lists the fields returned (IP:port, state, protocol, alias). This is clear and honest.

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 concise: two sentences for purpose and then a bulleted list of details. Every part adds value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action. 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?

Given that there are no parameters, an output schema exists (though not shown), and the description explains what the tool does and what information it returns, it is complete. The tool is simple, and the description covers all needed 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 no parameters, so the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics because there are none. It correctly indicates no input is required.

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 starts with 'List active TLS connections with details,' which clearly states the verb (List) and the resource (active TLS connections). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_tcp_connections by specifying it only shows TLS connections, and it mentions filtering from TCP connections.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it or what other tools are available (e.g., tls_list, get_tcp_connections). The description only states what it does.

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