ports_search

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

The annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe, non-destructive read operation. The description adds no further behavioral insights (e.g., response format, pagination behavior, or whether it searches across all ports). Given the annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 sentence with only 8 words, making it extremely concise and easy to parse. It is front-loaded with the key information (action, resource, method) and contains no unnecessary verbiage.

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 low complexity of a search tool, the presence of an output schema, and the detailed parameter descriptions in the input schema, the description is adequate. It provides the essential context for use without needing extensive behavioral details. However, it could optionally mention that results are paginated or that it returns port objects, but the schema covers that.

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 coverage is 100%, and each parameter is already well-described in the input schema (e.g., 'search' searches ifAlias, ifDescr, ifName; 'limit' and 'offset' provide pagination). The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Search ports in LibreNMS by search string.' It specifies the action (search), the resource (ports), and the method (by search string). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ports_list or ports_search_field, which have different scopes.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ports_search_field or ports_search_mac. The description lacks any context about preferred usage scenarios or when other search tools might be more appropriate.

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