gatekeeper_containers_wizard_ports_check

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds specific context about checking Docker-host port occupancy, but does not reveal deeper behavior such as whether it inspects containers, listeners, or kernel sockets. No contradiction is present.

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 tight sentence with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. It could use the saved space to explain the parameter or expected result, but it is concise and well-structured as-is.

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 one-parameter, read-only helper with rich annotations, the core purpose is adequately conveyed. However, with no output schema and no parameter-format guidance, the agent is left guessing about the exact input expected and how the response communicates port availability.

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%, and the description never explains the 'hostPorts' parameter beyond the schema's bare title. The integer type and plural naming are ambiguous, leaving the agent unsure whether a single port, a range, or multiple ports are expected.

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 ('check') and resource ('host ports on the Docker host'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. The 'Wizard helper' prefix also ties it to the container-creation flow, distinguishing it from the more generic sibling check_port.

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 phrase 'Wizard helper' implies this belongs in the container wizard flow, so usage context is weakly established. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternative port-checking or gatekeeper container tools, and it offers no exclusions.

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