list_sockets

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It implies read-only behavior by listing metadata, but does not explicitly state that the tool is safe, non-destructive, or has no side effects. Would benefit from such a statement.

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 no redundancy. First sentence states purpose and output contents, second explains parameter usage. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 an output schema exists, the description's mention of metadata fields (state, endpoints, idle time, counters) provides useful context. It is complete for a simple list tool, though could note any special conditions like requiring administrative privileges.

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 has 0% description coverage, so description fully compensates. It explains the parameter 'socket_id' can be a string, list of strings, or null, and that omitting returns all sockets. This adds critical meaning beyond the schema.

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?

Description clearly states 'List open sockets and their metadata', specifying the verb (list) and resource (sockets) with concrete metadata fields. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are about operations (close, poll, connect) rather than inspection.

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?

Explicitly explains how to use the parameter: pass a string, list, or omit for all. However, it does not mention when to use this tool over siblings or any exclusion criteria.

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