Добавить проброс порта

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

The description is consistent with the annotations: it describes a write operation, so readOnlyHint=false matches. The idempotent and non-destructive hints are not contradicted. However, the description itself does not surface the important dryRun/confirm gate behavior, though those details exist in the parameter schema.

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 compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and the resource, and every word contributes to the core meaning.

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?

The description is usable for understanding the main operation, and the schema fills in several parameter details. However, it does not explain the confirm/dryRun flow or anything about the returned RCI payload behavior, leaving an agent to infer important operational context.

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 description adds useful meaning to the otherwise undocumented parameters by framing the rule as external port to internal IP:port. It partially compensates for the low schema description coverage, but does not clarify the role of proto or wanInterface beyond what the schema already states.

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: creating a port forwarding rule. It specifies the mapping direction from external port to internal IP:port, which is concrete and distinguishes it from list_port_forwards, remove_port_forward, and route-related sibling tools.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which alternatives might be more appropriate. It also omits the prerequisite of obtaining a valid WAN interface and does not explain the confirm/dryRun workflow.

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