list_port_mappings

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates this is a safe read operation, so the description's main contribution is clarifying that it lists DNAT rules specifically. It does not add details about pagination, ordering, or other behavioral traits, but the annotation covers the safety profile.

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, front-loaded sentence that communicates the exact action and target resource with no unnecessary words or filler.

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?

For a simple list operation with no parameters and an output schema provided, the description is mostly sufficient. However, the lack of differentiation from similar sibling tools like list_nat_rules and list_port_forwarding_rules introduces some ambiguity, preventing a perfect completeness score.

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?

This tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline of 4 applies as there is nothing for the description to 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 uses the specific verb '列出' (list) and identifies the resource as '端口映射 (DNAT) 规则' (port mapping/DNAT rules), clearly stating what the tool does. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like list_nat_rules or list_port_forwarding_rules, which may overlap in scope.

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 such as list_nat_rules or list_port_forwarding_rules. There is no mention of preferred contexts, exclusions, or conditions that would help an agent choose this tool.

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