generate_random_port

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

The description discloses that the tool generates random numbers, implying no side effects. Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which is consistent with a non-read-only operation. However, no additional behavioral details are provided (e.g., whether port numbers are non-ephemeral), but the tool is simple enough that a score of 3 is adequate.

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 sentence with no filler words, efficiently conveying the tool's purpose.

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 random number generator, the description covers the core purpose. While no output schema exists, the return type is implied. It is nearly complete, though mentioning typical port ranges (0-65535) would improve clarity.

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 describes all four parameters (count, min, max, exclude) with 100% coverage. The description adds no extra context or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Generate random port numbers,' which matches the tool's name and function. It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like generate_password or generate_uuid, though it could benefit from specifying the range of ports (e.g., TCP/UDP).

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as lookup_port_numbers for known ports. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, leaving the agent without context for appropriate invocation.

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