ssh_forward

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the direction semantics but omits critical operational details: whether the forward is long-running, whether it blocks, how it can be stopped (the sibling ssh_stop_forward is not mentioned), authentication requirements, or failure modes. This is a significant gap for a tool that starts a persistent process.

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 three sentences, all information-dense and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second explains the permission-gating differentiation, and the third provides actionable direction guidance. No wasted words.

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?

This is a complex tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the core concept and direction semantics, but lacks essential context about return values, long-running behavior, prerequisites, and how to manage the forward after creation. Given the complexity, the description is incomplete and leaves too much to inference.

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 coverage is 73%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context for the 'direction' parameter with detailed usage examples, but it does not clarify the undocumented parameters (port, identity_file, known_hosts_file). It adds some value beyond the schema but does not fully compensate for the missing parameter documentation.

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 'Start a dedicated SSH port forward (local or remote)', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ssh_exec/ssh_start_session by noting it enables permission-gating for port forwarding, clearly separating it from sibling tools.

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 explicit context on when to use this tool via the permission-gating rationale, and gives concrete direction guidance ('Use direction 'local' to make a remote service reachable on a local port, or 'remote' to expose a local service on the remote host'). It doesn't explicitly mention exclusions relative to other forward-related tools like ssh_list_forwards/ssh_stop_forward, but the primary usage context is clear.

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