列出 SSH 隧道

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

The description adds a meaningful scope constraint beyond the annotations: it lists only tunnels created by the current MCP process, not all system tunnels, and only active ones. This is a behavioral trait not captured by readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, or destructiveHint. It does not dwell on return format, but the output schema covers that.

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 that states exactly what the tool does with no redundancy. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately concise for a zero-parameter list operation.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, read-only annotations, and an output schema present), the description is complete. It conveys the core purpose and scope without needing to explain return values or additional caveats. The output schema handles return structure.

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 has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There are no parameter details to add, and the description makes no misleading claims 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 clearly states the action ('列出', meaning 'list') and the resource ('活动隧道', meaning 'active tunnels'), and further specifies 'created by the current MCP process'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_tunnel_start and ssh_tunnel_stop, making the purpose 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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use this to view tunnels' or 'use ssh_tunnel_start/stop to manage them'. The usage is only implied by the tool's function.

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