reverse_port_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains the basic flow but omits important behavioral traits: what happens if agent_id is invalid, whether the agent must be active, error handling, connection lifetime, or side effects on the agent. The description does not disclose whether the tool is destructive or requires special permissions.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the verb and resource. Each sentence adds value: action/mechanism and return value. However, it could be restructured to include parameter explanations without adding much length.

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, the description minimally covers context. It does not explain the lifecycle of tunnels, connection limits, error scenarios, or how the tunnel ID is used (e.g., with stop_tunnel). For a tool with 5 parameters and network state modification, more contextual detail is necessary for confident use.

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 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter documentation. The description does not explain any of the five parameters. It mentions 'port' and 'thost:tport' without mapping to parameter names. The required parameters agent_id, port, target_host, target_port, and optional description are left entirely to the agent's inference.

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 'Start a reverse port forward' and explains the mechanism: agent listens on a port and forwards to a target host:port from the teamserver. It also specifies the return value (tunnel ID), which helps distinguish it from forward port forwarding (port_forward) and SOCKS proxies (start_socks4/5).

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like port_forward or start_socks. It lacks when-not-to-use conditions or prerequisite context (e.g., agent must be online). With several sibling tools for tunneling and proxying, clearer usage differentiation is needed.

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