forward_open

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

With annotations indicating this is not read-only or destructive, the description adds context by explaining the local_port=0 auto-assignment, return keys, allowance of multiple tunnels, and the ordering of ownership check before registry calls. It does not contradict the 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 four concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add relevant behavioral and parameter details without fluff.

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 description covers the operation, parameter defaults, return structure, multi-tunnel allowance, and ownership check order, which is sufficient given the presence of an output schema and annotations. It could mention error conditions but overall is solid.

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?

Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates by explaining that local_port=0 auto-assigns a free port, and that remote_port is the target port on the place. The place parameter's role is implied by 'on a place'.

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 clearly states the verb 'Open' and resource 'local port-forward tunnel' targeting a place, distinguishing it from sibling tools like forward_remote_open (remote forwarding), forward_list (listing), and forward_close (closing).

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 implies usage for creating local port-forward tunnels and notes that multiple tunnels per place are allowed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like forward_remote_open, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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