show_pmtime

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'read-only', which conveys that the operation does not modify state, but it does not disclose what output is returned, whether authentication is required, or any side effects (though read-only implies none). This is minimal and insufficient for a tool in a complex system.

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 short, which is concise, but it is a noun phrase rather than a proper sentence. It lacks structure and does not front-load actionable information. It is not a tautology, but it is under-specified for a tool description.

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 read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description should at least clarify what information is displayed or how it differs from similar siblings like portmaptime_list. It does neither. The description is incomplete for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and appropriate invocation context.

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 input schema is empty. Per the baseline for zero-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate because there is no parameter information that the description would need to add. The description does not introduce any parameter-related ambiguity.

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 is a noun phrase, 'Port mapping timeout settings (read-only)', which names the resource but lacks an explicit verb like 'show' or 'display'. While the 'show_' prefix and 'read-only' hint imply a query operation, it does not clearly state what the tool does with a specific verb+resource pair. It also does not distinguish itself from the sibling portmaptime_list, which likely serves a similar purpose.

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 alternatives such as portmaptime_list or other show_* commands. The description provides no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or when another tool would be more appropriate.

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