port_scan

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses that the tool uses 'ss' with a 'netstat' fallback and is limited to listening ports, which conveys a local read-only inspection rather than an active external scan. It does not mention potential permission requirements or output format, but the core behavioral profile is clear.

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?

Three concise sentences cover the main action, filter options, implementation detail, and use case with no redundant wording. The most important information is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

For a simple, zero-required-parameter list tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate and clearly explains the tool's value. Minor gaps remain, such as not explicitly stating that the scan is local-only or describing the exact output columns, but these are not critical for correct invocation.

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 already documents both parameters completely, and the description only restates that filtering by port or protocol is possible. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, 'List all listening TCP/UDP ports with their associated processes,' which clearly states what the tool does. This also distinguishes it from sibling tools like process_list by emphasizing listening ports and process mapping, so an agent can identify it without inspecting the schema.

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?

It states the intended use case, 'useful for checking what services are exposed,' which gives clear context for when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to sibling tools such as service_status or process_list.

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