port_scan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the tool makes active TCP connections, is non-intrusive (connect probe only, no authentication/exploits/data transfer), is read-only but visible in target logs. It also notes rate limiting and lack of API key requirements, providing complete transparency.

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 efficiently structured, starting with the core action, then behavioral notes, usage guidelines, and constraints. Every sentence adds unique value without redundancy, and it is appropriately sized given the tool's complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains return type (per-port open/closed list with service names). It covers input, behavior, constraints (authorization, visibility in logs), and rate limits. All necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly is present.

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?

With only one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the host parameter can accept a 'host:port' form to hint a specific port and emphasizes authorization, but the schema already describes the parameter well.

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 probes a host for common TCP ports and reports open ports, service names, and response times. It uses specific verbs like 'probe' and 'report', and distinguishes from siblings by naming ssl_check and http_security as alternatives for specific service configuration assessment.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('confirm which services are exposed') and when not to ('use ssl_check or http_security instead'). It also includes authorization requirements and rate limits, guiding appropriate usage.

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