List Udp

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 says nothing about being a read-only listing, whether it returns all sockets or only bound/listening ones, or any filtering/ordering behavior. Only the address-family scope is disclosed.

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 phrase with no wasted words and the resource front-loaded, but it is so terse that it reads as 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?

The tool is a zero-parameter read operation and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with no annotations, the missing read-only/behavioral statement and the absence of any sibling routing leave the definition merely adequate.

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 there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The 'IPv4 + IPv6' phrase is scope information rather than a parameter description.

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 (list) and resource (UDP), plus the scope 'IPv4 + IPv6', which implicitly distinguishes it from list_udp4 and list_udp6. It does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like list_tcp or list_all, so sibling differentiation is only implied.

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 description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no indication of when a sibling (list_udp4, list_udp6, list_all, get_listening_ports) would be preferable. The agent must infer everything from the name and sibling set.

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