check-port

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions checking ports and connectivity but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions (e.g., network access), what happens on failure (e.g., error messages), rate limits, or if it's a read-only operation. The dual-purpose nature (local vs. external) adds ambiguity without clarifying behavioral differences.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and waste, though it could be slightly more structured to separate local vs. external use cases for better clarity.

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 complexity (network operations with 4 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error conditions, security implications, or how results are presented, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior fully.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain port ranges, host formats, or SSH connection implications). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('check if a port is open/listening', 'test connectivity') and resources ('port', 'remote server', 'external hosts'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'download' or 'upload', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'test-connection' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 'test-connection' or other connectivity-related siblings. It mentions both local and external checks but doesn't specify scenarios or prerequisites for choosing between them, leaving the agent without clear usage context.

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