Can Bind Udp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The phrase '实际尝试' usefully signals an actual bind attempt rather than a heuristic check, which is real behavioral information, but it omits whether the port is held/released, what permissions are needed, and what failure looks like.

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?

A single short sentence with no filler, so nothing is wasted. However, brevity here shades into under-specification for a tool that performs a real network operation.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with zero annotations and 0% parameter coverage, the description is too thin for a tool that actually binds a socket. It should at least clarify side effects and the host default's meaning.

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 description coverage is 0% across two parameters (host, port). The description mentions only 'UDP 端口' loosely and says nothing about the host parameter or its 127.0.0.1 default, so it does not compensate for the documentation gap.

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 names a concrete verb ('实际尝试' - actually attempt) and resource ('bind UDP 端口'), making it clearly distinguishable from can_bind_tcp and from the passive list_udp/is_udp_port_used siblings. It is specific but extremely terse, so it is clear rather than richly informative.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent must infer that 'can_bind' is an active availability check distinct from is_udp_port_used or get_free_port; the description offers no routing guidance or conditions.

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