get_network_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, which is transparent enough for a simple informational tool, but the description does not mention potential permission requirements, platform differences, or how 'active' connections are defined.

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, direct sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to conveying what the tool does, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description is largely sufficient. However, in the absence of an output schema and annotations, a bit more detail about the returned data format or typical use context would make it more complete.

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, filter_type, is fully described in the input schema with its allowed values ('tcp' or 'udp'). The tool description itself adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable since schema coverage is 100%.

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 identifies a verb ('Get') and a resource ('active network connections and listening ports'), making the tool's purpose obvious. It is reasonably distinct from siblings like scan_network or check_port, though it does not explicitly state that it refers to local system connections.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as check_port, scan_ports, or ssh_list_connections. The description implies it lists local connections, but it does not provide any explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools.

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