get_open_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior on its own. It accurately indicates read-only inspection of listening ports, but it omits potential details like OS-specific behavior, permission requirements, or the fact that it may return both TCP and UDP in a single call. The description does not contradict any schema information but adds minimal extra behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 one concise, front-loaded sentence: 'List locally open (listening) TCP and UDP ports.' Every word is necessary and provides clear information without redundancy or filler.

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 tool is simple, has full parameter schema coverage, and an output schema exists (per context signals), so return values need not be described. The description covers the essential purpose and default scope. Minor gaps like platform compatibility or edge cases are not critical for this simple listing tool.

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%, with the single parameter include_remote fully described as 'If True, also include established connections.' The description adds no additional parameter context, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool lists locally open (listening) TCP and UDP ports, a specific verb ('List') and resource ('locally open TCP/UDP ports'). This distinguishes it from sibling network tools like ping/traceroute, which focus on connectivity checks rather than port enumeration.

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 provides clear context: it targets local listening ports. Although no explicit exclusions or alternative tools are named, the scope is self-evident and no sibling overlaps exist. The include_remote parameter implies a default behavior (only listening ports), reinforcing the usage context.

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