show_portmap

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the read-only behavior, which is useful, but it omits any other behavioral details such as output format, data source, or potential limitations. This is minimal transparency.

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 ('Port mapping table (read-only)') with no fluff, which is concise. However, it is under-specified to the point of being minimal; it does not provide enough information to be genuinely useful. It is concise but not appropriately sized.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is the sole source of information. It fails to explain what the port mapping table contains, how it is presented, or any prerequisites. For a read-only tool, more context is needed to ensure correct usage, especially with many similar sibling tools.

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 there is nothing for the description to explain. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate when there are no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics.

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 resource ('port mapping table') and indicates it is read-only. However, it does not differentiate this from sibling tools like 'show_nat' or 'nat_view', and 'port mapping' could be ambiguous without context. It is not a tautology, but it lacks specificity.

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. The description only states what it shows, not when it is the right choice. It does not mention any exclusions or related tools.

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