check_tcp_port

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden: it does convey this is a non-destructive probe that reports connect time. However, failure semantics are undisclosed — whether a refused/timed-out connection raises an error or returns a negative result — which materially changes how an agent should invoke and interpret it. Return shape is covered by the output schema, so the penalty is limited.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the action, the target, and the notable output all land in one clause. Nothing needs trimming — the gaps are omissions, not verbosity.

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 is simple, the output schema documents the return value, and the core action is stated. Still missing for correct invocation: timeout units/scope and behavior on connection failure — the two things an agent most needs beyond the schema for a network probe with no annotations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only re-uses 'host:port' from the schema and says nothing about the third parameter, timeout — its units (schema default of 3 is unit-less), whether it bounds only the connect phase, and what happens on expiry. Only the two obviously-named params are indirectly covered.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Test whether a TCP connection to host:port succeeds' is unambiguous and distinct from listing tools (list_ports) or higher-level probes (http_request, api_load_test). It also names the primary output, connect time. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with the nearest siblings, so 4 rather than 5.

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 when-to-use or when-not guidance. The agent must infer that this is the connectivity-probe option versus http_request, dns_lookup, or list_ports. Nothing states prerequisites (firewall, host reachable) or what alternative to pick when the host is unresponsive.

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