ssh_tunnel_close

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose one meaningful behavioral consequence beyond the name — that the host's local listening port is released — but is silent on what happens if the tunnel is already gone (idempotency), error behavior for an unknown/invalid tunnelId, and any permission requirements.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and its effect are stated immediately. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool, though it leaves no room for the guidance the previous dimensions flag as missing.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose and the port-release effect, which is roughly adequate. It nonetheless omits error/idempotency behavior that an agent needs before calling a mutating close operation.

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% with a single fully documented tunnelId parameter, so the schema already carries the semantics. '按标识符' merely echoes the schema's '待关闭的端口转发隧道 ID' and adds no format, origin, or lookup guidance beyond it; 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?

States a specific verb (关闭/close), a precise resource (端口转发隧道/port forwarding tunnel), the identification method (按标识符), and the side effect (释放宿主机本地监听端口). This lets an agent distinguish it from the forward-creating sibling ssh_forward_port and the read-only ssh_tunnel_list without opening either 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?

The description says only what the tool does; it gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives such as ssh_disconnect or ssh_session_close that could plausibly overlap. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.

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