List Port Forwarding Rules

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about scoping, ordering, or whether it returns all rules or a filtered subset, so it earns no extra credit.

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?

A single short phrase with no padding, front-loaded with the verb. It is not verbose, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness.

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, and the zero-param schema is trivial. Still, among dozens of similarly named list_* siblings, the description supplies no routing context, leaving the agent to guess which listing tool applies.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and additionalProperties is false, so the empty input contract is unambiguous.

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 phrase '列出端口分流规则' states a clear verb+resource, so an agent knows this retrieves port-forwarding rule entries. However, it is essentially a restatement of the title and gives no differentiation from near-identical siblings such as list_protocol_forwarding_rules, list_domain_forwarding_rules, or list_load_balance_rules.

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?

There is no indication of when to call this versus the other rule-listing tools, nor any prerequisite or exclusion. The agent must infer usage purely from the tool name.

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