Netstat 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 of behavioral disclosure, yet it says nothing about read-only safety, whether root is required, or what the output looks like. For a system-inspection tool whose output format varies by platform, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

A single short sentence that is front-loaded with the resource. It is efficient, though the trailing 'using netstat' adds little for an agent that only sees the tool interface.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and no explanation of what the connection listing contains or requires, the definition leaves an agent guessing about platform behavior and permissions. It should at minimum state that it is a read-only local inspection and note the ss_connections alternative.

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%, with both optional parameters (state, protocol) documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional meaning about accepted values or filtering behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Show network connections') plus the underlying mechanism (netstat), so an agent knows what the tool returns at a high level. It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling ss_connections, which offers essentially the same capability via a different utility.

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 versus ss_connections, nmap_scan, or port_scan, and no mention of prerequisites such as needing elevated privileges. The only implied context is that the agent should want connection listings.

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