List Udp4

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. 'List' weakly implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about cost, rate limits, whether it returns a snapshot or live data, or any ordering/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?

It is a single short sentence, which is front-loaded, but at this length it is under-specified rather than concise. Brevity here comes at the cost of any useful content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but for a listing tool with many overlapping siblings the description should do more to position this tool. As written, an agent gets almost nothing beyond the name and cannot confidently choose it over list_udp or list_udp6.

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 schema fully covers the input contract and there is nothing for the description to clarify. Baseline 4 applies when there are no parameters to document.

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 UDP' is essentially a restatement of the tool name list_udp4, adding only the IPv4 qualifier. It does technically distinguish the scope (IPv4 vs IPv6 vs TCP siblings), but it conveys no verb nuance beyond 'list' and reads as a tautology of the name.

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 versus list_udp, list_udp6, list_all, or get_listening_ports. The agent must infer selection purely from the name, with no exclusions or alternatives named in the description.

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