net_connections

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

The description claims a read-only operation ('List active network connections'), but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, creating a direct contradiction. The description does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond the basic output, such as permissions required, side effects, or performance impact. This inconsistency severely undermines trust.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every part serves a purpose: the verb, resource, analogy, and output details. No redundant words or clutter.

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 tool with no output schema and no parameters, the description covers the basic output fields (local/remote address, state). However, it omits details like protocol (TCP/UDP), process information (PID/name), and whether the snapshot is real-time. These are reasonable expectations for a 'netstat'-like tool, leaving the agent with incomplete context.

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 (trivially), the baseline is 4. The description adds value by specifying the output details ('local/remote address and connection state'), which is helpful since there is no output schema. No further enrichment is needed.

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 verb 'List' and the resource 'active network connections on this machine', with an analogy to 'netstat' for familiarity. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like port_scan (remote scanning) and arp_scan (ARP table), making the purpose 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?

The description uses 'like netstat' as an analogy, which implicitly suggests usage for inspecting network connections. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., port_scan for remote ports, wifi_scan for wireless interfaces). No 'when not to use' or prerequisites are mentioned, which is a gap.

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