Get network connections

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys safety, and the description adds only the 'active' live-snapshot framing. It does not mention that supplying host may trigger an SSH connection to a remote machine, though that behavior is present in the schema. The description contributes minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the action and resource without filler. Every word earns its place.

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, read-only tool with one optional parameter, an output schema, and a fully documented input schema, the description is nearly sufficient. The only notable gap is the absent usage differentiation from sibling network tools, which is already captured in the usage_guidelines score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the host parameter already has a clear description ('Remote host to connect to via SSH'). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score applies.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get detailed information about active network connections.' This is clear and distinguishable from siblings like get_network_interfaces or get_listening_ports by targeting active connections rather than interfaces or listening sockets, though it does not explicitly name those boundaries.

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 guidance is provided on when to choose this tool over the many sibling tools. The description implies use when active network connections are wanted, but it never states exclusions or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer selection criteria from the name and title alone.

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