shodan-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 for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API key requirement and the return type ('PortsResult with list of scanned port numbers'), but it does not disclose potential errors, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. This is adequate for a simple read-only list operation but lacks rich 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 appropriately short and front-loaded with the primary action. However, it contains slight redundancy—'List port numbers that Shodan crawlers are actively scanning' and 'Returns the list of ports that the Shodan crawlers are looking for on the Internet' convey similar information. Still, it is overall efficient and well-structured.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is relatively complete. It covers the purpose, the API key requirement, and the return type. It does not explain error handling or further details, but for a straightforward list operation, it provides sufficient context.

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 only parameter, 'timeout', is fully described in the input schema (100% coverage per context signals). The description adds no additional meaning to the parameter, so it falls at the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 function: 'List port numbers that Shodan crawlers are actively scanning.' The verb 'List' plus the specific resource 'port numbers' and the scope 'actively scanning' make the purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools that list other entities like facets, filters, or protocols.

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 a clear context for use: 'Useful for understanding Shodan's scanning coverage.' It also notes a prerequisite ('Requires a Shodan API key'). However, it does not explicitly compare against alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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