ssh_forward_port

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavior: a built-in idle timeout that auto-releases the tunnel to prevent leaks. However, it omits other key behaviors such as the SSH-connection prerequisite, failure/auth semantics, and what identifying handle the created tunnel returns.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action (建立...隧道) and the mechanism (-L), then appends the leak-prevention behavior in parenthesis. No wasted words.

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?

No annotations and no output schema exist, so the description should carry more. It covers the core action and one behavioral trait, but omits prerequisites (existing SSH connection) and what the tool returns (a tunnel identifier usable with ssh_tunnel_list/ssh_tunnel_close), leaving gaps for a 7-parameter tool.

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 100%, so every parameter (type, localHost, localPort, remoteHost, remotePort, connectionId, idleTimeoutSeconds) is already explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource (建立端口转发隧道) and even names the equivalent SSH flag (-L), so an agent immediately knows this creates a forwarding tunnel. It is somewhat narrowed to local/-L mode even though the schema supports local/remote/socks5, and it does not distinguish itself from the ssh_tunnel_list/ssh_tunnel_close siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any stated prerequisites such as needing an existing SSH connection. The relationship to ssh_tunnel_list and ssh_tunnel_close (how to inspect or tear down the tunnel created here) is left entirely to inference.

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