get_open_ports

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the return format (protocol, port number, process name) and explains the host_name parameter. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, nor does it address error conditions or permission requirements. For a simple list operation, this is adequate but not fully transparent.

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 exceptionally concise, with a single clear sentence followed by structured Args and Returns sections. Every piece of information earns its place, and the structure makes it easy to parse.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema, the description covers the purpose, parameter semantics, and return values. It lacks explicit alternative guidance, but this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of its function.

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 schema has zero description coverage for the host_name parameter, but the description compensates by explaining it: 'Named host from SSH_HOSTS config; uses default host if omitted.' This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's minimal type/title info.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'List all open listening ports and their associated processes.' This is a specific verb ('List') and resource ('open listening ports') with a clear scope, distinguishing it from siblings like list_processes or check_network_connectivity.

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?

While the description implies its use case (listing open ports), it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than stated.

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