check_ports

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

Annotations are missing, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose how 'free' is determined, timeout behavior, or what the output format is. Only the basic condition is mentioned.

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?

One clear sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded and to the point.

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 has no output schema, so the description should explain return values. It does not. Additionally, it lacks details about the exact behavior of the check (e.g., what constitutes 'free'). For a simple tool, it is insufficiently complete.

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 input schema covers the single parameter 'ports' with a description and constraints. Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds no additional 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 the tool checks if given TCP ports are free on localhost. The verb 'Check' and resource 'TCP ports' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like check_env_files or check_docker.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only states what it does, without specifying when it's appropriate or providing exclusion criteria. Usage is implied by the name and purpose, but not explicit.

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