forward_remote_open

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and provide little safety info. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it explains the direction semantics, the requirement that a local service must already be listening, the ownership check ordering, and the return payload shape. The only unaddressed aspect is detailed error behavior, but the provided behavior is well disclosed.

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 reasonably concise for the complexity it covers. It front-loads the primary purpose in the first line and packs essential behavioral details into a compact paragraph. Some could argue the sentence about forward_list/forward_close is a bit tangential, but it adds useful context for understanding how this tool relates to siblings.

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 complexity (SSH port forwarding with direction semantics, ownership check ordering, relation to sibling forward tools), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the required preconditions, return payload, and cross-tool consistency. The output schema exists, so return value documentation is adequately handled. This is a complete description for a moderately complex tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden for parameter semantics. It explains what both ports mean in the forwarding direction: a connection to remote_port on the DUT is forwarded to localhost:local_port on this host. It also states that the local service must already be listening, which is critical parameter context not in 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: "Open a REMOTE (-R) port-forward tunnel on a place." It clearly distinguishes this from forward_open by noting the local (-L) alternative and explains the required remote_port and local_port semantics. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose statement.

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 explicitly contrasts with forward_open's local forward, explains that both ports are required because labgrid's SSHDriver has no auto-assign, and notes that a local service must already be listening. It also mentions that forward_list/forward_close work identically regardless of direction, providing clear context for when this tool is appropriate.

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