create_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Expose a port' implies a mutation but does not state whether this creates an immediate mapping, whether it is reversible, whether it requires the service to be running, or what side effects it may have. Almost no behavioral context is given.

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?

The description is a single short sentence with no filler or repetition. It is concise and front-loaded, though it is so brief that it provides little operational value beyond the tool name.

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 annotations, no output schema, and five parameters, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain behavior, return values, prerequisites, conflicts, or default behavior. An agent has insufficient context to confidently invoke this tool beyond what the schema already provides.

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 high (80%), so the schema already explains most parameters, including 'External port' and 'Container port'. The description adds no meaningful parameter-level information, which is acceptable at this coverage level, though the protocol parameter remains undocumented in the description.

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 uses a specific verb ('Expose') and a clear resource ('port for a service'), so an agent can tell this is about creating external access to a service port. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_ports or create_mount, but the resource is distinct enough for basic identification.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_ports or create_mount. The phrase 'for a service' implies some context, but no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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