Network connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behaviour, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds meaningful content about what is returned (owning process, publishing organisation for the peer IP range), but says nothing about volume limits, pagination, or how connections are ordered, which matters for a potentially large network listing.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the core resource and then appends the return-value detail. No filler, no restatement of the tool name or title.

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 small, filter-only read tool with full schema documentation and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the missing return-shape information (process owner, publisher attribution). Only the absence of any guidance on result volume or ordering keeps it from a 5.

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% and every parameter (pid, agents_only, include_loopback) is already documented in the schema with defaults. The description adds no filter semantics or constraints beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names a specific resource and qualifier: 'Established TCP connections', which separates it from the sibling list_listening_ports without naming it explicitly. The added detail about owning process and publishing organisation clarifies what the listing contains. It stops short of an explicit sibling comparison, keeping it at a solid 4.

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?

Usage is implied by the qualifier 'Established' — an agent can infer this is for active/outbound connections rather than listening sockets — but the description never says when to prefer this over list_listening_ports, login_activity, or list_agents, and states no exclusions.

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