add_port_forwarding_rule

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only indicates the action of adding a rule, with no mention of side effects, persistence, default interface behavior, or validation. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with eight parameters.

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 short phrase, which is concise in length but under-specified in content. It essentially restates the tool name without adding meaningful detail, making it an ineffective summary rather than a valuable addition.

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 (8 parameters, all optional with defaults) and lack of annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not cover purpose, usage, parameter semantics, or expected behavior, leaving the agent with almost no operational context. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for the missing input-side 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?

The description offers zero parameter information. With schema description coverage at 0%, all responsibility falls on the description, but it does not explain the meaning of 'src_addr', 'dst_addr', 'protocol', or how they relate to the rule. The parameter names are self-evident to a human, but an AI agent receives no guidance on values or constraints.

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 states a specific action ('add') and a resource ('port diversion rule'), which clearly communicates that this tool adds a rule related to ports. It is distinguishable from domain-based forwarding rules and static routes. However, the term '分流' (diversion) does not exactly match the tool name's 'forwarding', creating minor 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_port_mapping or add_domain_forwarding_rule. It lacks any context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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