List connections

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-mutating local query. The description adds that it reads active sockets via ss or netstat, but it does not disclose potential permission requirements or how the limit interacts with the query.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the resource and method, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the definition is mostly adequate. The main gaps are the undocumented limit semantics and the lack of guidance distinguishing this tool from similar network inspection siblings.

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%, and the description does not mention the 'limit' parameter at all. The agent must infer from the property name and default that limit caps the number of returned connections, but the description provides no compensating clarification.

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 title and description jointly specify a clear verb (List) and resource (active TCP/UDP sockets), with useful implementation detail ('via ss or netstat'). It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling network tools such as port_list or network_check, so it stops short of a 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?

The description implies the tool is for inspecting current TCP/UDP socket connections, which gives some usage context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over alternatives like port_list, port_check, or network_check, and no exclusions are stated.

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