Is Udp Port Used

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 discloses nothing beyond the bare purpose. It does not define what 'used' means (listening, bound, reserved), whether it requires privileges, or how the result is determined. The output schema presumably returns a boolean, but the semantics of that boolean are left ambiguous.

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 key resource front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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?

With an output schema present, return-format explanation is unnecessary, but the description still omits critical context for a query tool with no annotations: the definition of 'used', privilege or platform assumptions, and how it differs from the many sibling port tools. It is not adequate for correct tool selection.

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?

There is only one parameter (port) with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only place semantics could be explained. It adds nothing about valid ranges, whether service names are accepted, or protocol assumptions, leaving the parameter under-specified.

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: checking whether a UDP port is in use. Combined with the name, an agent can distinguish it from the sibling is_tcp_port_used without opening the schema. It does not, however, explicitly contrast itself with related siblings like can_bind_udp or find_udp_port.

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 guidance on when to use this check versus can_bind_udp, find_udp_port, or list_udp, all of which touch UDP port state. The agent must infer the intended context 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.