host_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the classification scheme (including the 'PUBLIC because ufw is off' edge case) and that process names are included, which is genuinely informative, but it never states that this is a read-only snapshot tool or whether any auth/permission is required. The disclosure is mostly about return content rather than operational behavior.

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?

Two sentences with essentially no filler, and the core scope ('what is reachable on a host and from where') is front-loaded. The trailing 'Plus the public UFW allows.' is a slightly awkward fragment, but nothing is wasteful.

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 low-complexity, one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden well by enumerating the classification buckets and the process-name field. The remaining gap is the absence of any sibling differentiation, but on the whole an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 single parameter 'host' is fully documented in the schema ('host name from the inventory (fleet_hosts)') at 100% coverage. The description adds nothing beyond that -- it never clarifies valid host identifiers or how the value relates to fleet_hosts. Baseline 3 applies when the schema already does the work.

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?

States a specific resource -- every listening socket on a host with its exposure classification (local / tailnet-only / public-allowed / blocked by ufw / PUBLIC) plus the process name. An agent can tell what this reports without opening the schema. It does not, however, distinguish itself from adjacent siblings like host_firewall, host_connections, or host_net_check, which also deal with host reachability.

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 explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The closest thing to guidance is the implication that this is an exposure/audit query, which the agent must infer rather than being told. Rival tools such as host_firewall and host_net_check are never mentioned, so the agent has no routing signal.

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