list_port_forwarding_rules

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already declares this as a safe read operation, and the description '列出' is consistent. No additional behavioral context is provided, such as pagination or ordering, but given the tool's simplicity, this does not contradict annotations.

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 concise phrase with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded and every word earns its place.

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 zero-parameter, read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description conveys the core functionality. However, it does not elaborate on the scope of rules returned or any default behavior, so it is slightly under-complete compared to a fully self-contained description.

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 has zero parameters, so the input schema is empty. Per baseline, a no-parameter tool earns a 4; there is no parameter-related information the description could add beyond the schema.

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 '列出端口分流规则' (List port forwarding rules) clearly identifies the tool as listing a specific resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from similar siblings like list_port_mappings or list_nat_rules, so it lacks separate differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It simply states the action, with no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or when to choose other list tools.

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