get_product_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 states that the tool returns port entries with specific fields, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, idempotency, authentication needs, or potential errors.

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 concise with two sentences for the main purpose followed by an Args section. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information: it explains the return format and usage prerequisite. It is complete for an agent to correctly select and invoke this 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?

The input schema has 0% descriptive coverage, but the description adds significant meaning to the single parameter 'product_name' by specifying it requires an exact product name and providing examples like 'VBR v13', 'VB365'. This compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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 all network port requirements' and the specific resource 'for a specific Veeam product'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_by_port_number and list_products by focusing on port requirements per product.

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 explicitly advises to 'Use list_products first to find valid product names', providing clear context for usage. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or suggest alternatives.

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