remote_port_forward_local

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It explains the core behavior (listens and forwards) and gives an illustrative example, but does not disclose side effects such as port conflict handling, whether the command blocks or returns immediately, or lifecycle management (e.g., need to stop via remote_port_stop).

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 concise and well-structured: a one-sentence definition followed by the example. Every sentence is purposeful, front-loads the main idea, and there is no redundant 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?

The tool has moderate complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations). The description adequately covers purpose and usage example, but lacks key operational context such as whether an active session is required, background vs. blocking behavior, and how to stop the forward. Given the absence of annotations and output schema, this is a notable gap.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete example mapping ports (localPort: 5433, remoteHost: localhost, remotePort: 5432) but does not introduce semantics beyond what the schema already states for each parameter.

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?

Description clearly states 'Start a LOCAL port forward (SSH -L style)' with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling remote_port_forward_remote by explicitly marking 'LOCAL' and contrasting with SSH -L style, making its function unambiguous.

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?

Provides clear context via example ('Access a database running on the remote server') and explains how to connect. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives like remote_port_forward_remote, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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