Get Established Connections

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, yet it only restates the tool title. It does not disclose that this is a read-only, side-effect-free query, nor any scope, performance, or permission characteristics.

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 the state and protocol front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though almost too terse to be helpful.

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?

The tool is simple (no params, output schema present, so return values need no explanation), but against a large family of overlapping TCP/UDP listing siblings, the description omits the comparative context an agent needs to select it correctly.

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, the baseline is 4; there is nothing to document. The description correctly implies the only selection criterion (ESTABLISHED state) is fixed rather than parameterized.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (TCP ESTABLISHED connections), including the state filter that implicitly distinguishes it from list_tcp/list_all. However, it never names a sibling or explains how it differs from the broader TCP listing tools, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer this over list_tcp, list_all, or the port-specific siblings, and no prerequisites. The agent must guess the routing condition from the name alone.

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