get_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavior such as error handling for invalid element IDs, whether it returns only direct ports or inherited ones, or if it has any side effects. This is a significant gap for a read operation with no annotation support.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. No unnecessary words, and it avoids redundancy with the schema. However, it lacks any structured breakdown or additional context that could aid the agent.

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?

Given the output schema is present, the description doesn't need to detail return values. However, with one parameter and no annotations, it should provide more context on expected behavior, such as what happens if the element has no ports or if the element doesn't exist. It's minimally adequate but not fully 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?

The schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies element_id identifies the owning element, which is helpful, but it doesn't clarify the format or any constraints (e.g., must be a valid element ID). The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.

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 ('Return') and resource ('ports owned by an element'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling getters like get_relationships or get_element_structure by focusing on ports, though it doesn't specify what types of ports (e.g., full, proxy) are included.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like find_by_type or get_element_structure. It doesn't mention any conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer when this is the right getter.

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