List All

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' strongly implies a read-only, side-effect-free inspection, but the description does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, permissions, or constraints. It is adequate for a simple enumeration but adds little beyond the verb.

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 front-loaded sentence that states the full scope with no wasted words. Ideal for a zero-parameter tool.

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 zero parameters, an output schema handling return values, and no annotations, the description states scope clearly enough to call the tool correctly. It omits sibling routing and explicit read-only disclosure, but neither is critical at this complexity level.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is moot, and the description adds nothing about parameters because there are none to explain.

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 gives a specific verb (列出/list) and resource (IPv4/IPv6 TCP + UDP 网络连接), and the scope enumerates all protocol and IP-version combinations. This implicitly distinguishes it from the many subset siblings (list_tcp, list_udp, list_tcp4, etc.), though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

The scope ('all') implies this is the comprehensive option to use when no protocol or IP-version filter is desired, but the description never states when to prefer it over list_tcp, list_udp, or similar siblings, nor any exclusions.

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