get_network_connections

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the specific data fields (local/remote addresses, status, owning process name), which is useful but does not reveal additional behavioral traits such as performance impact or permission requirements. This aligns with the calibration example where annotations cover safety and description adds some context.

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, well-structured sentence that immediately states what the tool returns with no filler. It is front-loaded and every word contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the return contents clearly (connections, addresses, status, owning process). No output schema exists, but this description, combined with the safety annotations, is sufficient for an agent to know what to expect and when to use it.

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 description does not need to explain parameter semantics. The baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool, as there is no additional meaning to provide beyond what the empty schema shows.

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 uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('all active TCP/UDP connections') with details on addresses, status, and owning process. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_network_usage, which focuses on bandwidth metrics.

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 description implies usage for inspecting network connections and the returned fields make the tool's purpose clear. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool over alternatives like get_network_usage or get_process_details, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative guidance.

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