get_port_forwards

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only states the action (get rules) but omits any detail about whether the operation is read-only, if authentication is needed, or what side effects occur. For a tool interacting with firewall config, this lack of transparency is a significant gap.

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 sentence that is direct and front-loaded. No wasted words. Every term adds value.

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 has no parameters and an output schema is provided, the description is largely complete. However, it could briefly mention the nature of the rules (e.g., using iptables) to set expectations, but this is not critical since the output schema will define the structure.

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?

There are zero parameters, so schema coverage is complete. The description doesn't need to add parameter details. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for no parameters.

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 retrieves port forwarding/NAT redirect rules from the firewall config. It uses a specific verb (get) and resource (port forwards/rules), and the sibling tools are all distinct get commands for different resources, so there's no ambiguity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_firewall_rules). An agent would benefit from knowing that this tool is specifically for NAT/port forwarding rules, while other tools cover different firewall aspects. Without this, it may misuse the tool.

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