remote_port_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The term 'list' implies a read-only operation, and 'active' indicates it shows current forwards, but it does not disclose potential side effects (there are none) or what the return payload contains. It add minimal context beyond the verb, leaving some transparency gaps, though the operation is inherently safe.

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: 'List all active port forwards.' Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler. This is an example of appropriate brevity and structure.

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 is simple (one optional parameter, no output schema) and the description fully captures its core behavior. However, since there is no output schema, it would be helpful to mention what the returned list contains (e.g., session IDs, port numbers), but this is not critical for a basic list operation. The description is complete enough for the tool's low complexity.

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%, with the sessionId parameter fully described in the input schema ('Session ID to filter (optional, shows all if omitted)'). The tool description does not add any additional parameter context beyond the schema, but it doesn't need to since the schema already explains the behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema handles the heavy lifting.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('active port forwards'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like remote_port_forward_local and remote_port_stop, which perform different actions. The addition of 'all active' provides scope, matching the get_calls standard for a specific verb+resource+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 implies usage (when you want to see active port forwards) but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like remote_port_stop or remote_port_forward_local. There is no mention of when-not-to-use or references to sibling tools, so it relies on the name and purpose to convey context. This is implied usage rather than explicit guidance.

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