List TCP Mappings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavior beyond that: no mention of pagination, ordering, whether an empty list versus an error is returned for a Cube with no mappings, or any auth/space-scoping caveat. It also doesn't contradict the annotations, so this is a plain gap rather than a conflict.

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 zero redundant wording and the resource scope stated first. Nothing is wasted, though the terseness leaves the sentence carrying very little information overall.

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?

This is a simple two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, present annotations, and no output schema, so the description does not need to explain return values. However, for an open-world listing tool it says nothing about what a mapping record contains or how the space/cube scoping interacts, leaving it merely adequate.

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 description coverage is 100%, with cubeId and spaceId both documented in the schema (including the KROVA_SPACE_ID default behavior), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about cubeId or spaceId beyond what the schema states.

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 gives a specific verb ('List') and resource ('a Cube's TCP port mappings') with the parent resource named, so an agent can distinguish it from create_tcp_mapping, delete_tcp_mapping, and the webhook list tools purely from the text. It stops short of naming a sibling explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: you call it to inspect the TCP mappings of a given Cube. There is no statement of when to prefer it over create_tcp_mapping or delete_tcp_mapping, no prerequisites, and no note about needing a Cube that exists or is running. For a straightforward read listing, implied usage is the minimum viable bar.

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