show_openport

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It does state 'read-only', which is a useful behavioral guarantee, but it does not mention return format, whether it reflects active sessions or configured rules, or any other runtime behavior.

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 very short and front-loaded, with the NAT scope stated firstcher. It avoids unnecessary words, but reads as a fragment rather than a complete functional statement, so it does not earn a 5.

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 parameterless read-only query, the description is mostly workable because the agent can invoke it without arguments and knows it is non-mutating. However, without an output schema or any distinction from sibling NAT/port tools, it is ambiguous whether this lists configured open-port rules, active NAT sessions, or UPnP-opened ports.

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 zero parametersinate 100% coverage, so no parameter explanation is needed. The description adds useful context by indicating the output is about opened ports in a NAT context, which is sufficient for a parameterless tool.

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 ('opened ports') and scopes it to NAT, with the verb carried by the tool name 'show'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like show_nat, nat_view, or upnp_nat, so some ambiguity remains.

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 show_openport versus alternatives such as show_nat, nat_view, port_status, or upnp_nat. No prerequisites or selection criteria are provided.

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