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 discloses the idle_timeout behavior (automatic stop after inactivity) and return values for each action. It does not elaborate on underlying network mechanics or prerequisites like kubeconfig validity, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond a bare function statement.

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 organized with a one-line summary followed by an Args list and Returns section. It is somewhat long due to the 9 parameters, but every sentence adds value and the structure helps readability. It could be more concise, but the density is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all parameters, describes the return values for each action, and explains conditional requirements and idle timeout behavior. No important usage aspect is left unexplained.

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%, so the description is the only source of parameter meaning. It explains every parameter in detail, including conditional requirements (pod_name/local_port/pod_port required for start, forward_id for stop), defaults (namespace default 'default'), ranges (ports 1-65535), and idle_timeout semantics.

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 tool's function: 'Pod 端口转发管理：启动、停止、列出转发会话' (Pod port forwarding management: start, stop, list sessions). This specifies the verb (manage/start/stop/list) and resource (port forwarding), effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_pod_logs or exec_pod_command.

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 provides clear context for each action (start/stop/list) and the parameters required for each. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for port forwarding, but within the sibling set no other tool handles port forwarding. Therefore, it gives sufficient guidance on when to use this tool.

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