find_port_occupiers

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden. The word 'Check' implies a read-only inspection, but it never explicitly states that it is non-destructive, nor whether elevated privileges (lsof/fuser often need root) are required. It does add helpful context about the error conditions that motivate the call.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the usage trigger immediately after. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 return values need not be explained, and for a one-parameter diagnostic the description covers purpose and trigger adequately. The remaining gaps are permission requirements and the natural follow-up tool, which are minor but notable for a troubleshooting utility.

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% for the single required 'port' parameter, so the description must compensate. The example '/dev/ttyUSB0' does convey the expected path format, which is meaningful added value, but nothing is said about accepted path variants or whether a short name like 'ttyUSB0' works.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Check which processes are currently locking/using a serial port') and gives a concrete example path. It is clearly distinct from list_serial_ports (enumeration) and free_serial_port (remediation), though it never names those siblings 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?

It gives an explicit triggering condition: use it when seeing 'Port busy' or 'Resource temporarily unavailable' errors. It does not mention what to do next (e.g. free_serial_port) or when this is unnecessary, so the routing guidance is clear but not complete.

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