Local Connections

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains the underlying commands (ss on Linux, netstat fallback), reveals that state filtering is done post-processing when netstat lacks native support, mentions the note field, and flags the admin privilege caveat for PIDs. This is rich and honest context beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, and every additional sentence covers a distinct necessary behavior: command selection by OS, state-filter mechanics, note-field behavior, and privilege requirements. There is no filler or repetition.

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 one optional parameter and an output schema already present, the description covers all non-obvious behavior an agent needs: OS differences, fallback command behavior, filtering approach, note field, and permission caveats. Nothing important is missing for correct invocation or interpretation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single optional enum parameter is already well described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the state filter behaves differently per platform and that the tool filters output itself when the underlying command cannot, recording this in the note field.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Show active network connections and listening ports' and explicitly says it displays TCP/UDP sockets with local/remote addresses and state. It is unambiguous, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like local_netstat_stats or local_interfaces.

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 first sentence clearly establishes the use case: inspecting active network connections and listening ports. It also provides practical context about platform-specific command behavior and the admin privilege caveat. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools or state when-not-to-use, so it stops short of a 5.

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