add_port_mapping

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply states the action without mentioning side effects, requirements, or implications such as whether the mapping is persistent, whether it affects existing mappings, or if it requires specific network conditions. This is a significant gap for an add operation.

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 sentence, which is concise in length, but it does not earn its place: it merely restates the tool name. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness, similar to the 'process' calibration example.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters, no annotations, and a minimal description, yet the description fails to provide any operational context. While an output schema exists, the description is far from complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It leaves all aspects of configuration, constraints, and expectations unexplained.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameter meanings or relationships. It does neither—there is no mention of any parameter, and the required fields (name, internal_ip, internal_port, external_port) are completely unaddressed. The agent is left to guess what values to provide.

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 "添加端口映射" is a direct translation of the tool name 'add_port_mapping', essentially restating the title without adding specificity. It does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like add_port_forwarding_rule or provide any detail about what a port mapping entails.

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. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left without any contextual hints to choose between this and similar tools.

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