Get listening ports

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (implying a read operation). The description adds value by specifying what details are retrieved (ports, protocols, services), but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs for the SSH host parameter, or potential performance impacts. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich in context.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It directly states what the tool does, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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?

With annotations indicating a read-only operation, an output schema present (so return values are documented elsewhere), and high schema coverage for the single parameter, the description is mostly complete. However, it could improve by clarifying the tool's scope relative to siblings or mentioning default behavior for the host parameter, but overall it's sufficient given the structured data support.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'host' parameter documented as 'Remote host to connect to via SSH'. The description doesn't add any extra meaning beyond this, such as default behavior when host is null or examples of valid hosts. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb 'Get' and the resource 'details on listening port, protocols, and services', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_network_connections' or 'get_network_interfaces', which might cover related network information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling tools for network connections or interfaces. It lacks any mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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