lattice_get_worker_port_availability

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

The description states that the tool 'List host ports already claimed' and 'get a free suggestion', which are read-like operations. It does not mention needed permissions or side effects, but given no annotations, the description is sufficiently transparent about the tool's behavior for an agent to understand it is a safe, information-gathering call.

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: the first states what the tool does, the second provides usage guidance. Every word is meaningful, and no space is wasted. It is front-loaded with the core action.

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 has no output schema, the description effectively communicates what the agent can expect: a list of claimed ports and a free port suggestion. This is sufficient for the agent to use the tool correctly in workflows like port allocation for databases. The tool's purpose is distinct among the many sibling tools, and the description covers the necessary 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 input schema already covers both parameters with descriptions (id: 'Worker ID', port: 'Check one specific port instead of listing all claims'). The description adds value by explaining the overall purpose and that the tool returns a suggestion, which goes beyond the schema. This justifies a score above 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 uses specific verbs ('List', 'get') and clearly identifies the resource ('host ports already claimed on a worker') and the action's beneficiaries ('databases and stack containers'). The phrase 'Check this before pinning a database to a specific port' distinguishes this tool's purpose from sibling tools like those for database or container operations.

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 clear context for when to use the tool ('before pinning a database to a specific port'). While it does not explicitly list alternatives or say when not to use it, the specific use case is well communicated.

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