List TCP Mappings

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a read-only operation. The description adds no further behavioral context beyond the basic listing behavior, such as output format, pagination, or failure conditions, but it does not contradict the annotations.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the tool's core purpose, and it is appropriately concise for a simple list operation.

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 low-complexity read-only list tool, the description plus the complete input schema and annotations give an agent enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. No output schema exists, and the description need not detail return values for such a straightforward operation.

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%, and the schema already explains cubeId and spaceId adequately. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but the structured schema carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('List') and a clear resource ('a Cube's TCP port mappings'). It distinguishes this tool from its siblings create_tcp_mapping and delete_tcp_mapping by the action and resource scope.

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?

The intended use is implied by the verb 'List' and the resource 'TCP port mappings', but there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives or any exclusion criteria. It does not mention related operations like creating or deleting mappings.

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