pivot_ssh_remote

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely names the operation without explaining what happens when the tool is invoked—no mention of tunnel creation, port binding, persistence, or side effects. The agent has no idea what to expect.

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 only five words, which is extremely brief. However, this is under-specification rather than concise clarity. It lacks sentence structure and omits essential information, so it does not effectively fulfill the role of a tool description.

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 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It fails to explain what the tool does, how the parameters relate, what the expected outcome is, or how it fits into the broader pivot toolset. The agent cannot safely or correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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 0% and the tool description adds no parameter explanations. While parameter names like remote_port and local_host are somewhat self-explanatory to an expert, the description does not clarify their roles in the context of SSH remote forwarding, and local_host/local_port semantics could be ambiguous without further context.

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 'SSH remote port forward' is a noun phrase rather than a sentence explaining the tool's behavior. It identifies the general technique but does not state what the tool actually does (e.g., forwards a remote port to a local host:port). It also fails to distinguish this from sibling tools like pivot_ssh_local or pivot_ssh_dynamic, which are similarly named.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling pivot tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where this tool is preferred. The lack of any contextual instruction leaves the agent without direction.

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