driftguard_inspect_ports

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection and limits scope to local TCP listening sockets (excluding UDP and remote hosts), but says nothing about required privileges, whether the operation has side effects, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the scope constraint appears before any optional detail. It is efficient, though it offers no structural cue about return values or conditions.

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 one-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers purpose and scope but leaves the caller guessing about output shape (process names, PIDs, addresses) and privilege requirements. Adequate, not 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter already documents the 'specific port vs. all listening ports' behavior, including examples. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, 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?

A specific verb and resource combination ('processi attivi in ascolto') plus an explicit scope ('una porta specifica o su tutte le porte TCP locali') makes the function unambiguous and separable from siblings such as driftguard_kill_process or driftguard_diagnose_failure.

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 never states when to reach for this tool instead of alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., that elevated privileges may be needed on privileged ports). The only hint is the scope option, which merely restates the parameter and not a usage condition.

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