list_port_forwarding

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only an enumeration of returned fields, which duplicates what the existing output schema already conveys; it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether disabled rules are included.

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?

It is a single short sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise — the fragment lacks a leading verb or clause stating the action, and the field list is front-loaded in place of a purpose statement.

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 zero-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the bar is low and the description is minimally viable. It omits any note on filtering, result scope, or how to act on the returned rules, which leaves a small but real 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description neither misleads nor omits anything about inputs.

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 is a noun fragment naming the resource (port forwarding rules) and the fields returned, but supplies no verb — the agent must infer 'list' from the tool name. It is identifiable against write siblings (add/delete/set_port_forwarding_enabled) mainly because of the name, not the description text.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the sibling tools for modifying these rules. The agent gets no signal about whether this is the right entry point versus list_static_routes or the port-forwarding mutation tools.

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