Get Process Ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. The retrieval verb implies a read operation, but the description does not state permissions, error behavior, whether the process must exist, or how local/remote process scope is handled.

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 redundant or wasted text. For a simple one-parameter retrieval tool, this is an appropriately compact structure.

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 described. Still, with no annotations and 0% parameter schema coverage, the definition is only minimally complete: it omits parameter details and any routing guidance among the many port-related siblings.

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%, and the schema only declares a required integer 'pid'. The description says the target is '某个进程' (a process), which loosely links pid to a process, but it does not define pid format, explain what process ID means, or compensate for the absent schema documentation.

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 specific verb ('获取' / get) and resource ('某个进程正在使用的全部 TCP / UDP 端口' / all TCP and UDP ports used by a process). Its combined TCP/UDP scope distinguishes it from protocol-specific siblings such as get_process_tcp_ports and get_process_udp_ports.

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?

Usage is implied by the stated scope: get ports for a process. However, it does not tell the agent when to prefer this over the many sibling tools, especially get_process_tcp_ports or get_process_udp_ports when only one protocol is needed.

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