Find Udp Port

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query all records' implies a read-only lookup, which is the most important disclosure, but nothing is said about whether results are local-only, whether a port with no matches returns empty, or about ordering. Basic safety profile is inferable but thin.

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 compact sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and scope. It is arguably too terse, but nothing is wasted.

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 finder tool in a crowded family of port-related siblings, the absence of any routing guidance or parameter constraints leaves it only minimally adequate.

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 coverage is 0% and the single 'port' property has no description, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by clarifying that the port is a *local* UDP port, but says nothing about valid ranges or whether an unbound port is acceptable.

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 gives a clear verb (查询/query) and a specific resource (records using the specified local UDP port). It implicitly distinguishes itself from find_tcp_port and the list_* siblings by scoping to UDP and to records that *use* the port rather than merely listen on it, though it never names those alternatives.

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 guidance on when to choose this over find_tcp_port, find_listening_port, or the list_udp* family. The agent must infer the selection criteria purely from the word 'UDP' in the name.

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