Get Process Udp Ports

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read via '获取' but does not state permissions, error behavior for invalid or non-existent PIDs, or whether the process must be running.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately terse for a simple getter, though it errs toward under-specification.

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?

Given the low complexity, a single required parameter, and an existing output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks pid semantics and sibling differentiation, which matters with so many closely related 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% for the single required parameter pid. The description says '某个进程' but does not explain that pid is the process ID, its format, or any constraints, adding little beyond the parameter 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?

States a specific verb ('获取') and resource ('UDP 连接') scoped to a process. It distinguishes UDP from TCP by name, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_process_ports or get_process_tcp_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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no conditions for selection. The agent must infer from the name and sibling list whether to use this over get_process_ports or list_udp.

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