serial_list_ports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of port names, JSON objects), whether it requires system permissions, or if it has side effects like refreshing port states. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with hardware.

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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action ('List available serial ports') and specifies the scope ('on the system'), making it immediately understandable without requiring additional parsing.

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 the tool's low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format or system dependencies, which could be important for an agent using this in a hardware context. It meets basic requirements but leaves room for improvement.

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 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is efficient and avoids redundancy. A baseline of 4 is applied as it correctly handles the zero-parameter case without unnecessary details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('available serial ports on the system'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'serial_list_connections', but the specificity of 'serial ports' versus 'connections' provides some implicit distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'serial_list_connections' or other serial tools. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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