get_active_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. It implies a read operation and lists the returned fields, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior when the limit is exceeded. The minimal information is adequate for a simple retrieval tool.

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 extremely concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the action and output fields, and the second covers parameter usage. No unnecessary words.

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 retrieval tool with one optional parameter, the description covers the key points: what data is returned and how to control the limit. An output schema likely provides the full return structure, so the description is sufficiently 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 description adds meaning to the 'limit' parameter by stating it 'caps results' and notes the default value, which goes beyond the schema's type and default. Despite 0% schema description coverage, this explanation compensates well.

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 retrieves active network connections from the conntrack table and lists the fields returned (protocol, src, dst, ports, state). It is distinct from sibling tools, which focus on specific statuses or system info.

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 explains that the 'limit' parameter caps results (default 500), providing usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but given the sibling tool names, the context is clear.

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