List ports

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description earns some credit for stating that results include fixed IPs and security groups and that paging is marker-based, but it says nothing about result size limits, ordering, or what an empty project looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its notable payload, followed by the paging contract. No filler and nothing to trim.

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?

The output schema and annotations relieve the description of return-format and safety duties, and pagination is covered. But for a 6-parameter tool with four optional filters, an agent reading only the description would not know filtering exists — a meaningful completeness gap given the sibling set is filter-heavy.

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 67%, so the schema does most of the work; the description mirrors only the two paging parameters. It never mentions the filtering parameters, and the status enum (ACTIVE/DOWN/BUILD/ERROR) has no description in the schema either, leaving that filter's effect undocumented everywhere.

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 verb and resource ('List the project's ports') and adds what the records carry ('fixed IPs and security groups'), so the agent knows this is a collection read rather than a detail read. It does not explicitly contrast with get_port or list_networks, but the list/get naming convention makes the split reasonably clear.

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 only usage guidance is the pagination mechanic ('Paged with limit and marker'). Nothing tells the agent when to prefer this over get_port for a single port, or that the tool supports server-side filtering by status, device_id, network_id and project_id — arguably the most decision-relevant fact about a list endpoint.

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