List port forwarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond them: the rules are read from running-config, meaning unsaved/active state rather than the saved config — relevant given the sibling diff_saved_config. It stops short of describing output format or count.

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?

A single tight sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. Every clause carries information.

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?

For a no-argument, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is essentially complete: it says what is listed and where it comes from. The only minor omission is the shape/scope of returned rules, which is not strictly required since no output schema exists.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline of 4 applies. No misleading parameter hints are present.

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?

States a specific verb (List) plus resource (port forwarding / static NAT rules) and even names the underlying config construct ('ip static'). It clearly separates from the mutation siblings set_port_forwarding/remove_port_forwarding, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the adjacent read-only get_firewall_rules.

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 listing intent implies when to use it, and naming running-config hints at the source of truth, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over get_firewall_rules or when-not to use it. Usage is left to inference from the name and siblings.

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