rport_create_tunnel

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses genuinely useful behaviors: the local port lands on iot.console.queo.com.co, the ACL defaults to the MCP's egress IP, and the tool does not execute SSH but returns the command instead. It does not cover cleanup, tunnel lifetime, or permission requirements, but the key operational traits are present.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, host context, SSH recipe, and behavioral caveats. Purpose is front-loaded and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

For a tool with 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: host endpoint, SSH usage, default ACL, and return behavior ('devuelve el comando a usar'). It could mention cleanup via rport_delete_tunnel or tunnel lifetime, but the high schema coverage fills the remaining parameter gaps, making this adequately complete.

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 91% (high), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete parameter recipe (remote=22, scheme=ssh) and explaining the ACL default behavior, which helps the agent choose correct values rather than just knowing field types.

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 uses a specific verb+resource pair ('Crea un túnel inverso en un cliente activo') that clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rport_list_tunnels, rport_delete_tunnel, and rport_exec_command. It also states a prerequisite (active client) and clarifies it is a reverse tunnel, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Provides clear context: 'Para SSH usa remote=22 y scheme=ssh' gives a concrete recipe, and 'No ejecuta SSH' sets an implicit exclusion that routes SSH execution toward sibling rport_ssh_exec. However, it never explicitly names an alternative tool or states a when-not-to-use condition, so it stops short of a 5.

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