List Udp6

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, yet it says nothing about whether this is a read-only snapshot, live polling, what happens on a system with no IPv6 stack, or the safety profile. Only the two-word title restated in Chinese is offered.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, but brevity here reflects under-specification rather than economy — the same length could have said what is being listed.

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 documented, and a zero-param list tool needs little context. Still, the absence of annotations plus the ambiguous noun ('IPv6 UDP' what?) leaves the agent guessing about the result set's meaning.

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 disambiguate. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a no-argument tool.

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 verb (list) and a partial resource (IPv6 UDP), and the sibling set (list_udp4, list_tcp6) makes the protocol/version scope inferable. However, it never says what the listed items actually are — sockets, connections, ports, or endpoints — so the resource is under-specified.

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_udp4, or get_listening_ports. The protocol/version distinction is left entirely to inference from the name.

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