tunnel_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It only says 'checks the status' without specifying what status entails (e.g., format, depth), potential side effects, or prerequisites. This is insufficient for a mutation-adjacent tool.

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 very short but incomplete. While it avoids verbosity, it fails to include necessary details, making it less effective than a slightly longer but more informative description.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing need to explain return values), the description lacks context on usage, parameter semantics, and behavioral expectations. It is incomplete for a tool with network implications and sibling alternatives.

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 single parameter 'target' has a default of 'default' but its meaning is unexplained. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description adds no additional semantic value beyond 'for the target'. This leaves agents guessing about valid values.

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 action ('checks') and resource ('status of reverse tunnel'), distinguishing it from sibling action tools like tunnel_start and tunnel_stop. However, it does not clarify what 'target' refers to, slightly reducing clarity.

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 use this tool versus alternatives such as tunnel_start, tunnel_stop, or net_diagnose. The description lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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