pivot_chisel_client

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It only lists arguments and gives a basic example, but does not describe connection lifecycle, blocking/non-blocking nature, authentication requirements, or what happens on the target.

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 concise with a clear one-line summary and bullet-like argument explanations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be better structured (e.g., separating args more clearly).

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 presence of an output schema (implied), returning values are not needed. However, the description lacks information on prerequisites (e.g., server must be running), success/failure indicators, or how the tunnel is managed (foreground/background). It is minimally adequate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful context: server_url example, tunnel specification format, and fingerprint verification purpose. This compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 'Start a Chisel client to connect to a Chisel server.' It uses a specific verb (start) and resource (Chisel client), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like pivot_chisel_server which starts a server.

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 explicit when-to-use or alternatives are mentioned. While the tool's name and context imply it's for Chisel-based pivoting, there is no guidance on when to choose this over other pivot tools (e.g., pivot_ligolo_start, pivot_socat_forward).

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