get_open_ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states a read-oriented action and the return payload, but does not explicitly confirm it is read-only or note any privilege/permision requirements that could affect a successful call. Some context is added via the expected output, but explicit safety/ide-effect disclosure is missing.

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 compact and well-structured: one action sentence followed by a clear 'Returns' list. It front-loads the core purpose and avoids unnecessary detail, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 tool with an output schema, the description covers the essential behavior and return content. The main gap is the lack of an explicit read-only/privilege note, but the verb 'Discover' strongly implies a no-side-effect investigation, so this is a minor omission.

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 accepts no parameters, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%. A baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description appropriately focuses on output semantics rather than parameter details.

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 ('Discover') and clear resource ('ll listening network ports (TCP and UDP)') with a defined scope and output. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like test_network_connectivity or get_ufw_status, which serve different purposes.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance is provided. The usage is implied by the action described (inspect listening ports), but there is no mention of alternatives or conditions that would make this tool preferred over others in the sibling set.

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