Find Port

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. It says only that records are queried; it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side effects, permissions, or how the optional protocol affects results. The word '查询' suggests a read, but that is not enough detail for a no-annotation tool.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though that conciseness comes at the cost of missing necessary semantic detail.

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. However, for a tool with two parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete: it omits protocol semantics and provides no routing among the numerous sibling tools.

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%, so the description must compensate. It implicitly clarifies that 'port' means a local port, but it does not mention the optional 'protocol' parameter at all, leaving its meaning, default behavior, and null handling undocumented.

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 states a clear verb ('查询') and resource ('使用指定本地端口的所有记录'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its many siblings such as find_tcp_port, find_udp_port, or find_endpoint, which is the main gap preventing a higher score.

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 offers no guidance on when to use find_port versus the many alternative find/list/get/is tools. It does not mention exclusions, expected context, or the optional protocol parameter as a route to narrower siblings.

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