skuuy_check_ports

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description carries the meaningful behavioral burden. It discloses the fixed port allowlist, that arbitrary ranges are rejected, that it is strictly rate-limited, and the abuse-guard intent — none of which the annotations or schema convey.

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?

Four sentences, all substantive and front-loaded with the core behavior before the guard rails. The inline port enumeration slightly duplicates the schema enum, but it contextualizes the allowlist restriction, so waste is minimal.

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 read-only diagnostic with full annotation coverage and a fully described two-parameter schema, the description covers purpose, constraints, and intent well. The only minor gap is that the return format (per-port open/closed results) is not mentioned, though no output schema exists.

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%, with both parameters documented and ports constrained by an enum plus default and maxItems. The description's port list largely restates the enum rather than adding new syntax or format detail, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb ('Checks'), the resource ('common service ports'), the mechanism ('TCP connect'), and the scope ('on a host'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like skuuy_check_security_headers and skuuy_resolve_dns, which operate on different dimensions.

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 states the intended use ('diagnosing your own deployments and firewall/NAT traversal') and an explicit exclusion ('not for scanning third parties'). This is a clear when/when-not statement with no competing sibling to route away from.

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