security_port_audit

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

The '[SAFE]' prefix hints at nondestructive behavior, but no annotations exist. Lacks details on permissions needed, output format, or what 'dangerous ports' means.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence with a safety prefix. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the safety marker.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about auditing criteria, output details, or typical use cases. It feels under-specified for a security 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?

No parameters exist and schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds no parameter info. Baseline 3 because schema already covers all, though description could clarify the output's structure.

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 it audits listening ports and flags dangerous ones. It distinguishes from 'network_listening_ports' which likely only lists, but could be more specific about the flagging mechanism.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like 'security_cve_scan' or 'network_listening_ports'. The description does not specify context or alternatives.

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