list_open_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral traits. It does not disclose what information is returned (e.g., port name, status), nor does it mention that it is a read-only operation (though 'list' implies it). The description is minimal.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence clearly states the action and resource, the second adds clarifying scope. No unnecessary words or details.

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 no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned information contains. It only says 'returns information' without specifying fields, leaving the agent uncertain about the output.

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 has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters.

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 lists open/managed serial ports, using a specific verb 'List' and resource 'currently open/managed serial ports'. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'list_ports' by specifying it only includes ports opened through this MCP server.

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 implies when to use this tool (to see only ports opened via this server), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like list_ports for seeing all ports. Usage guidance is implied but not explicit.

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