doctor_port_inspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It states the tool checks port occupancy and reports the PID, implying a read-only inspection with no side effects. However, it does not disclose whether admin privileges are needed, whether it scans localhost only, or the format of the returned data. The description gives the core behavior but lacks edge-case context that annotations would typically cover.

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, well-structured sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose (checking ports) and specifies the output (PID) efficiently. Every word adds value, and the example ports make the input format immediately clear.

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-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema or annotations, the description is adequately complete. It explains what it does, what input is expected, and what information it provides (occupancy and PID). It does not specify the exact response format, but this is a minor gap for a simple inspection tool. The description could benefit from stating that it is a read-only check or that it only scans the local machine, but overall it is sufficient.

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 schema description is 100% complete for the single parameter 'ports', including an example, so the baseline is 3. The tool's description adds little beyond what the schema already provides—it reiterates the port examples but does not clarify additional details like valid ranges or duplicate handling. Therefore, it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 states a specific verb ('Checks'), resource ('specific network ports'), and the precise outcome (whether occupied and by which PID). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like doctor_diagnose_project and doctor_check_env, which address broader system/project health rather than port occupancy.

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 intended use case is implied: if you need to know whether specific ports are occupied and by what process, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as doctor_check_env for environment checks or security_scan_secrets for security-related scans. No exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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