get_connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool works on multiple OSes and returns process info, but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., requiring admin privileges) or performance impacts. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise with a clear two-sentence overview, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 tool's moderate complexity and absence of output schema, the description explains the return values (addresses, states, process info) sufficiently. It could include more detail on process info fields, but is complete enough for typical use.

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 schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), but the description adds meaningful details: filtering by protocol (tcp/udp) and state (e.g., ESTABLISHED, LISTEN). While it does not provide exact enum values, it compensates well for the missing schema information.

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 clearly states it retrieves active network connections, listing TCP/UDP ports and established connections, and notes cross-platform support. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_conversations or get_arp_table, which could lead to confusion.

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 specifies the tool is for viewing active connections, providing a clear use case. However, it lacks guidance on when not to use this tool or mentions alternatives (e.g., get_conversations for connection tracking).

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