List Tcp4

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only states that the tool lists IPv4 TCP. It does not disclose read-only nature (though 'list' implies it), ordering, permissions, or pagination behavior.

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 and is front-loaded, but it is so terse that it lacks the context needed to use the tool among siblings. It is concise without being adequately informative.

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 no annotations and many similar sibling tools, the description does not explain the scope difference from list_tcp or list_tcp6. Although the output schema exists and there are no parameters, the lack of routing guidance leaves an agent under-informed.

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. The description adds no parameter details, which is appropriate given there are none.

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 '列出 IPv4 TCP' restates the tool name/title (List Tcp4) as an expanded translation, giving the verb and resource but adding no sibling differentiation. It does not explain how it relates to list_tcp, list_tcp6, or list_udp.

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?

No when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. With many sibling listing tools (list_tcp, list_tcp6, list_all), the agent gets no criteria for choosing this one.

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