mmar_get_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read operation ('Get') but does not disclose what 'full details' includes, error handling, or authentication requirements. As a getter, mutation risk is low, but the lack of any behavioral context limits transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, followed by a helpful domain clarification. No redundant information or filler; every sentence earns its place.

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 tool is a simple getter with one parameter and no output schema. The description explains the purpose and domain concept, but does not specify return structure, error behavior, or authentication context. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, a more complete description would mention these aspects, so it is minimally viable.

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 schema already fully documents the uuid parameter with a description and format. The description simply restates 'by UUID' without adding additional semantics. Given the high schema description coverage (100%), the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get the full details'), the resource ('a specific port'), and the lookup method ('by UUID'). It also adds domain context ('Ports are connection points on classes'). While it doesn't explicitly compare to sibling getters, the resource name inherently differentiates it from other get_* tools.

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 implies you need a UUID to retrieve a port, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No prerequisites like authentication (implied by sibling login tools) or exclusions are mentioned. The usage context is only implied by 'by UUID'.

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