adb_ensure_forwarding

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds the key detail 'check first, then set up if needed,' revealing idempotent behavior. However, it does not disclose what happens if forwarding already exists with different parameters, error conditions, or the return value.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action ('Ensure') and adds a concise behavioral clarification. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main behavioral contract (idempotent setup). It does not discuss edge cases like conflicting existing forwardings, but given the tool's simplicity and the presence of sibling tools for other operations, the description is reasonably 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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (localPort and remoteAbstract), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds nothing beyond what the schema states, so it sticks to the baseline for adequate schema documentation.

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 purpose: ensuring port forwarding is set up. The parenthetical 'check first, then set up if needed' specifies the tool's behavior and distinguishes it from sibling tools like adb_forward_port (which unconditionally forwards) and adb_list_forwardings (which only lists).

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 implies when to use the tool (when you need to guarantee forwarding) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. There is no direct comparison to adb_forward_port or adb_list_forwardings, leaving the choice to the agent's inference.

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