port_forward

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It explains the forward mapping and notes it returns a tunnel ID, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or required permissions. The behavior is described adequately but not comprehensively.

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 a single sentence plus a concise format specification. There is no extraneous information, and it is well-structured for quick comprehension.

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?

Given 6 parameters and no annotations, the description covers the core concept but omits parameter descriptions for agent_id and description, and does not address edge cases or return value details beyond mentioning the tunnel ID. It is adequate but leaves gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the roles of lhost/lport as local and target_host/target_port as remote, but does not individually describe agent_id or description. This adds some meaning beyond the schema but is incomplete.

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 identifies the tool's function: starting a local port forward through an agent, with a specific direction format (lhost:lport → thost:tport). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like reverse_port_forward and stop_tunnel by specifying 'local port forward' and returning the tunnel ID.

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?

The description implies usage for port forwarding but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like reverse_port_forward or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context is provided.

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