inspect_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. 'Inspects' signals a non-destructive read, and the result (PID/application) is stated. However, it does not disclose what happens when port is omitted, what output shape to expect, or whether elevated privileges are required.

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 focused sentence that states the action, target resource, and purpose without filler or repetition. Every phrase contributes useful information.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify omitted-port behavior and return contents more precisely. Mentioning PID and application is likely enough for basic use, but some interpretation remains.

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 schema already fully describes the port parameter, including optionality and range. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the association between port being and PID/application resolution, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb ('Inspects'), names the resource ('active local network ports'), and states the outcome (identify PID and application). It clearly distinguishes itself from any generic or unknown tool, and no sibling tools are provided to confuse selection.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need to map a local port to the process and app using it. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the absence of sibling tools makes that less necessary.

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