port_inspect

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 one non-obvious behavioral trait: results include processes Kranz does not manage, i.e. the scan is broader than the tool's own managed scope. It says nothing about required privileges, whether the check is local or remote, or failure behavior when a port is closed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope qualifier is attached efficiently. It is appropriately sized for the operation, though the brevity is partly what leaves the usage gap.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. However, for a two-parameter diagnostic tool with no annotations, the description omits the runtime-scoping interaction (i.e. that omitting `runtime` targets the server's own project) and any privilege or scope caveats.

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?

Schema coverage is 50%: `runtime` is documented in the schema, while `ports` has no description. The phrase 'explicit port numbers' partially compensates by signaling that specific port values must be supplied, but adds no format or range detail beyond the schema's integer 1-65535 bounds.

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?

States a specific verb (Identify) and resource (current listener on explicit port numbers), and adds a meaningful scope note that it covers processes Kranz does not manage. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `ports` tool, so it falls short of a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as `ports` or `status`. The phrasing 'on explicit port numbers' faintly implies you must already know the ports you care about, but this is inference rather than stated guidance.

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