tunnel_open

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the link is a secret, single-use, and expires, with a reference to joinLinkExpiresInSec in the result. It lacks details on side effects or permissions, but overall transparent.

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 two sentences, extremely concise, and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value with no waste.

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?

Despite good overall context, the description completely omits explanation of the required 'goal' parameter, which is a critical gap. It also lacks details on return structure beyond one field, making it incomplete for agent usage.

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 only parameter 'goal' (required, type string) is not described in the description. Schema coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate but fails to explain what 'goal' means or expects.

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 specifies the tool's action: 'Open a tunnel as host and get a join link to share.' It explicitly distinguishes this from sibling tools like tunnel_join, tunnel_close, etc., by focusing on the host role.

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 clear usage guidance: use to host a tunnel and get a link. It warns about the link's secrecy, single-use nature, and expiry, advising prompt sharing. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is sufficient.

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