zte_open_port

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

Annotations show readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. The description adds context about automatic detection of internal host and defaulting of internal_port and name. It does not detail risks or reversibility, but the annotation coverage is adequate.

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 well-structured with an intro, parameter list, alternative reference, and recommended workflow. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds value; could be slightly more concise.

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 description covers parameter semantics, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains every parameter: port, protocol (with default), internal_host (auto-detect if None), internal_port (defaults to port), name (auto-generated). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it opens a port with sensible defaults and contrasts with sibling tool 'zte_add_port_forward' for ranges or full control, making the purpose distinct and specific.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for single ports with defaults. It directly recommends an alternative for ranges. It also outlines a multi-step conversational flow, including calling zte_get_local_ip and confirming with the user.

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