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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: the viewer polls it every few seconds to detect edits and trigger rebuilds. It could add rate-limit or auth context, but the polling and caller restriction are meaningful.

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?

Two compact sentences with zero waste. The return value is front-loaded, and the caller restriction follows immediately.

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 simple one-parameter read-only status tool, the description is complete: it states the return fields, caller restriction, and polling purpose. Annotations handle the safety profile, and no output schema is needed because the returned fields are named.

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 coverage is 100% and the sole forgeId parameter is fully documented in the schema, including acceptable id or slug forms. The description adds no further parameter syntax or format details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns a forge's current name and tree hash. The description also distinguishes this as a viewer-internal status endpoint rather than an assistant-facing forge query, helping separate it from siblings like get_forge or show_forge.

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?

Explicitly states who calls it ('Only the viewer calls this') and who should not use it ('it is not a tool for the assistant'). This is direct when/when-not guidance that prevents miselection.

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