status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reports state and settings, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly say it makes no changes. It also doesn't disclose whether it requires an active connection or what happens if the port is closed.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the three reported aspects. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 exists, so return values are presumably documented there. However, the description doesn't clarify whether the tool works without an active connection, which is a key contextual gap given the sibling tools include connect and disconnect. It also doesn't mention whether RX buffered is a count or bytes, though the output schema may cover that.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden. The description correctly focuses on what the tool reports rather than inputs. Baseline 4 is appropriate for a no-parameter tool.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and names the resource ('a port') plus the specific aspects covered: open state, settings, and RX buffered amount. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like connect, disconnect, and read_available, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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 implies this is a diagnostic/status tool to check port state and settings, which is distinct from connect/disconnect or read operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites like needing an active connection.

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