启动 SSH 隧道

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

Annotations already indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation with open-world side effects. The description adds valuable context that the tunnel binds only to 127.0.0.1, a security-relevant behavior. However, it does not mention conflict behavior if a tunnel already exists or whether authentication is required.

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, action-first sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool and easy to parse.

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?

While the description clearly conveys the core action, it leaves important gaps: no parameter guidance, no mention of the required `alias` context, and no lifecycle note. The output schema may cover return values, but the input side remains under-specified for a 4-parameter tool.

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 schema has zero description coverage for parameters, and the description does not explain the role of `alias`, `local_port`, `remote_host`, or `remote_port`. The only hint is that it creates local port forwarding, leaving `alias` and port semantics ambiguous.

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 the specific verb '创建' (create) with a clear resource '本地端口转发' (local port forwarding) and adds the constraint '仅监听 127.0.0.1' (listening only on 127.0.0.1). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ssh_tunnel_stop and ssh_tunnel_list, and from general ssh_execute.

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 usage is implied from the tool name and sibling context, but the description does not state when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any preconditions like needing an alias from ssh_list_servers. It provides no explicit exclusion guidance.

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