portmaptime_list

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states '(read-only)', which clearly tells the agent the operation has no side effects. This is the most important behavioral trait for a list tool; other behaviors (e.g., output shape) are not described, but for a 0-parameter read-only tool this is sufficient.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. It conveys the essential function and the read-only property without any wasted words.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly. It does not explain the exact return format or units of the timeout settings, but the task is simple: the agent just calls it with no arguments and can expect a list of settings. Without an output schema, a slightly richer description would be nice, but the tool is so simple that the description is nearly 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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is an empty object, which covers 100% of the schema. With no parameters, the description is not expected to add parameter details; the baseline for 0 params is 4 and the description does not need to add more semantic meaning.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('port mapping timeout settings'), and adds a read-only cue. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like portmaptime_set (modifies) and portmaptime_flush (clears), making the purpose immediately obvious.

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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus its siblings; the read-only hint implies it is for inspection, but the description never mentions the alternatives or says 'when you want to set or flush, use...' The usage context is only implied by the read-only label.

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