ssh_tunnel_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. '列出' plus '当前所有活跃的' does communicate that this is a non-mutating read scoped to active tunnels, which rules out any write side effect. However, it does not say whether authentication is required, whether inactive/closed tunnels are excluded, or whether the tunnel list can be stale, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 verb and resource with no filler or redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a no-argument listing tool, though the phrase packs listing scope and all three reported fields into one clause.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description usefully compensates by naming what comes back: tunnel status, port mappings, and transfer statistics. For a parameterless read tool this is close to complete; only the active-vs-inactive filter boundary and any permission requirement remain unstated.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The schema coverage is 100% and the input object is empty, which is fully consistent with the description's claim of listing all active tunnels.

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?

Specific verb (列出/list) plus a precise resource (活跃的端口转发隧道) and an explicit scope of what is reported (状态、端口映射、传输统计). An agent can distinguish it from ssh_list_connections or ssh_list_targets by the resource, though it never names a sibling explicitly to reinforce the contrast.

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 contains no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not tell the agent how this relates to ssh_forward_port (which creates tunnels) or ssh_tunnel_close, nor that it should be called before closing a tunnel to obtain its identifier. Usage must be inferred entirely.

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