router_get_port_forwarding

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implicitly declares a read-only operation via "Lists" and mentions the cellular WAN scope plus a "Network Guard safety check," which is genuinely useful context, but it never explains what Network Guard is, what the check protects against, or what happens on failure.

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 short lines with the core purpose front-loaded and the parameter note separated. Nothing wasteful, though the inline "Args:" block is slightly informal for prose documentation.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, with zero annotations covering a tool that exposes a safety-bypass flag, the description should say more about the consequences of force=True and how this differs from the add/del/port-forwarding siblings.

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 0% and the single parameter is documented only as a bare boolean named "force." The description supplies the meaning of that flag (bypass the Network Guard safety check), which is real added value the schema lacks; it stops short of saying when an agent should actually set it.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Lists ... port forwarding rules") and narrows scope to NAT Virtual Server rules on the cellular WAN interface. It does not name or contrast with sibling tools like router_add_port_forwarding or router_del_port_forwarding, so a reader must infer the read-vs-write split.

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 word "active" and "Lists" imply this is a read/inspection call, which is enough to distinguish it in practice from the add/del siblings, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance is given.

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