Get Process Tcp Ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it only restates that connections are retrieved. It does not say whether the call requires elevated permissions, what happens for a nonexistent PID, or whether the operation is read-only — all relevant for a process-introspection 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?

A single short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. It is efficient, though the extreme brevity leaves much unsaid rather than being optimally structured.

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, and with one required parameter the call mechanics are simple. However, with no annotations and zero schema descriptions, the description should do more to cover permissions and failure behavior for a process-scoped query.

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 parameter pid must be documented by the description. The phrase '某个进程' only loosely implies that pid identifies the target process; it adds no format, valid-range, or meaning beyond the schema field name.

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+resource: fetching the TCP connections used by a process. It implicitly differentiates from the UDP sibling (get_process_udp_ports) by naming TCP, but does not distinguish itself from get_process_ports or get_process_tree, so it misses the full sibling-differentiation credit.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as get_process_ports or list_tcp. The sentence only restates the purpose, leaving the agent to infer selection from the tool name alone.

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