Get container port

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context of its own: nothing about what is returned, what happens if no port is configured, or any permission scoping.

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 the trigger condition first and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though that economy comes at the cost of the missing parameter and return information.

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?

With two undocumented required parameters, no output schema, and no detail on what the tool returns (a port number? a mapping?), the description leaves an agent guessing on inputs and outputs. It is not adequate for a two-parameter lookup tool.

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 0% for two required parameters, so the schema gives no meaning for 'project' or 'service'. The description never mentions either; the phrase 'a Lizard app' only loosely gestures at the service parameter and says nothing about how project and service combine to identify the target.

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 read action ('know which container port ... is listening on') on a specific resource, which distinguishes it from the sibling mutation service_set_port. It is slightly informal in identifying the resource as a 'Lizard app' rather than naming the service/project parameters.

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 opening clause 'Use this when the user wants to ...' gives an explicit trigger condition, which is more than most siblings offer. It does not state an exclusion or point to service_set_port as the write counterpart, so the when-not side is missing.

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