lucky_list_port_forwards

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured metadata. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination, output shape, or what objects are included. It is consistent with the annotations, but doesn't add value beyond them.

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, direct sentence with no filler or redundancy. The action and object are immediately clear 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?

For a no-parameter read-only list operation with strong annotations, the description gives the essential purpose and resource. It doesn't specify the return format or pagination, but no output schema exists; nevertheless, 'List ... objects' is sufficient to invoke correctly. A slightly richer description of the returned data would make it fully complete.

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?

There are zero parameters and the input schema is empty, so the schema has no semantic gap for the description to fill. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed. The description at least confirms the resource being listed.

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 a specific action ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('Lucky port forward objects'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling create/update/delete_port_forward tools, which involve mutation rather than read-only listing.

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 intent to list rather than create/update/delete is implied by the verb and the sibling tool names, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives or mention any preconditions. There is no direct when/when-not guidance.

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