list_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explains the return format for 'hosts' (JSON map) and that it returns processes and PIDs, but it does not disclose whether administrative privileges are required, potential side effects, or rate limits. The description is partially transparent but lacks critical behavioral context for a system-level tool.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no redundant information. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 has three parameters and no output schema. The description covers the return format for 'hosts' and mentions optional port filtering, but it does not clarify the return format for the single 'host' case, nor does it specify behavior when both 'host' and 'hosts' are provided, or any error conditions. Minor gaps remain, but overall it provides sufficient context for most use cases.

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% coverage with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the return format for the 'hosts' parameter (JSON map) and providing a usage recommendation. It does not significantly expand on the 'host' or 'port' parameters beyond the schema, but the added context for 'hosts' justifies a 4.

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 lists active listening TCP/UDP ports, matching processes, and PIDs, on either a single host ('host') or multiple hosts concurrently ('hosts'), with optional filtering by port. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_system_stats' and 'list_hosts' by focusing on network ports and processes.

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 gives explicit guidance to prefer 'hosts' for scanning multiple machines, which helps with optimal usage. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternative tools for other use cases, such as 'search_processes' for process-level filtering.

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