ssh_tunnel_create

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tunnel keeps running until closed, returns a tunnel ID, and defaults localHost to 127.0.0.1. It does not mention authentication or background execution, but overall is transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first explains purpose and behavior, second details parameter semantics. No waste, every sentence adds critical information.

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's complexity (3 tunnel types, parameter dependencies), the description covers the key behaviors and return value. No output schema exists, but the return value (tunnel ID) is mentioned. Minor gaps like blocking vs async are not critical.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining when remoteHost/remotePort are required (local/remote) vs ignored (dynamic), and that localPort defaults to 127.0.0.1. This exceeds the schema's bare descriptions.

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 it opens an SSH tunnel for port-forwarding or SOCKS proxy, with a specific verb ('opens') and resource ('SSH connection'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ssh_tunnel_close and ssh_execute by focusing on tunnel creation and return of a tunnel ID.

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 explains when to use each type (local/remote/dynamic) and which parameters are required or ignored. It does not explicitly state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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