at_list_ports

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It correctly indicates a read-like operation by stating 'List all available COM/serial ports' and describes the return fields. However, it does not explicitly confirm non-destructive behavior or mention any prerequisites or side effects, which would be helpful.

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 extremely concise—two sentences, zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List all available COM/serial ports') and then specifies the output details. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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 has no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate context by listing the output fields. It is sufficient for a simple list operation. However, it could mention error conditions or permissions, but the core information is present.

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?

With zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description's baseline is 3. The description adds value by detailing the returned data, but this relates to output rather than parameter semantics. No additional parameter information is needed, so the baseline score 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 the tool's purpose: listing all available COM/serial ports. It specifies the returned fields (device name, description, hardware ID, VID/PID), which is specific and unique among sibling tools. The verb 'List' and resource 'available COM/serial ports' are precise and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use or not use this tool versus siblings. However, the simplicity of the tool (no parameters, straightforward list) implies its usage: call it to see available ports. It does not exclude alternatives, but the sibling list includes tools like at_auto_detect which may overlap, so explicit guidance would improve clarity.

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