ssh_open_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only states the action. It does not disclose read-only nature, required privileges, or output format. The existence of an output schema reduces the burden slightly, but the description itself lacks behavioral context.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args:' section is a slight structure, but it could be more organized. Overall, it is concise without unnecessary detail.

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?

For a simple listing tool, the description is minimally adequate. The output schema handles return values, but the description lacks usage guidance, prerequisites (active session), and behavioral details. It meets the bare minimum but misses opportunities for completeness.

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 description adds meaning to the sole parameter 'session_name' by stating 'SSH session to use,' which clarifies its purpose. However, schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on default behavior or constraints, so it only partially compensates.

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 primary function: 'List all listening (open) ports and the processes using them.' The verb 'List' and resource 'listening ports' are specific and distinct from sibling tools like ssh_check_port or ssh_process_list.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools such as ssh_network_info or ssh_process_list.

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