port_sniff_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which is a useful safety hint, but it does not describe what the status represents, the output format, or any other behavior. This is minimal disclosure for a tool 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 extremely concise, consisting of a single phrase, and the 'read-only' note is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified and lacks any detail that would justify such brevity. It is concise but at the cost of necessary context.

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 tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of meaning. It explains it is a read-only status query for port sniffing, but does not clarify what 'port sniffing status' entails, what data is returned, or how it differs from related status tools. Given the large sibling set, this is insufficient for an agent to reliably use it.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete and the description adds nothing beyond that. Per the baseline for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate; there is no missing parameter information to compensate for.

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 the resource (port sniffing) and the action (status), and explicitly notes it is read-only. This is specific enough to distinguish it from many other status tools, though it does not name any sibling or elaborate on what the status contains. It is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling status tools such as port_status or port_speed. No conditions, exclusions, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent has no information to decide between this and similar tools.

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