Is Tcp Port Used

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it only restates the core purpose. It does not say whether 'used' means bound, listening, or connected, whether the check is local or remote, whether privileges are required, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 short sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. However, it is under-specified for a tool whose behavior is not obvious from the title alone, so its brevity comes at the cost of completeness.

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?

For a simple one-parameter query with an output schema, the return value can be omitted, but the description still fails to explain what 'used' means, how the check is scoped, or how it differs from sibling tools. Given the lack of annotations, it leaves important behavioral context missing.

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 single 'port' parameter is undocumented in both the schema and the description. The description implies checking a port but adds no format, range, or protocol-specific details beyond what the name already suggests.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('判断' / determine) and resource ('TCP 端口' / TCP port) with the condition of being used. However, it does not differentiate this tool from close siblings such as is_tcp_port_listening, is_port_used, or can_bind_tcp, so an agent must still infer the exact scope of 'used' without help.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like is_tcp_port_listening or can_bind_tcp. The name implies a usage context, but the description provides no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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