Port owner

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the safety profile. The description adds that the tool specifically targets listening ports and returns process identity fields, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose potential permission requirements, behavior for non-listening ports, or protocol scope, leaving some behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds output fields in parentheses, making it efficient. It could be phrased more directly as an imperative, but the current form is clean and readable.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete. It states the input (a listening port) and the type of output (owning process details). It does not cover error cases or sibling selection, but those are minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. Saying 'listening port' clarifies that the integer parameter refers to a port in a listening state and that the result identifies the owning process. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though protocol details (TCP/UDP) are not mentioned.

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 clearly identifies the resource (a listening port) and the output fields (pid, comm, cmdline, cwd), making the tool's function understandable. It does not explicitly name or differentiate from sibling tools like port_check or port_list, but the focus on 'owns a listening port' is specific enough to avoid major confusion.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as port_check, port_list, or process_list, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The only implied usage is that it applies to listening ports.

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