port_forward

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

Annotations only provide a title; no readOnly or destructive hints. The description describes a forward operation, implying a persistent connection, but does not disclose that it may run indefinitely or require manual stopping. No contradiction with annotations.

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 11-word sentence, making it concise but lacking depth. It is front-loaded with the core action, but the brevity sacrifices clarity on parameters and usage details.

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 5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and only a title annotation, the description is inadequate. It does not explain resource type options, namespace necessity, or port constraints, leaving the AI agent underinformed.

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?

Input schema has 5 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description does not explain any parameter (e.g., what 'resourceType' values are valid, the role of 'namespace', or port formats). This is a critical gap.

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 ('forward') and the resource ('local port to a port on a Kubernetes resource'). However, it does not distinguish from the sibling tool 'stop_port_forward' or other related tools, missing an opportunity to clarify scope.

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 when to use (to establish a port forward), but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives. The presence of the sibling 'stop_port_forward' suggests a lifecycle but is not mentioned.

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