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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the output contains (bounding boxes, silhouettes), its scope (every part), an important limitation (no referee checks), and how frame selects a pose. It does not explicitly state 'read-only/no side effects', but the verb 'look at' strongly implies it.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and output, the second adds a critical limitation and the frame nuance. Every clause earns its place.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the agent will get: bounding boxes and silhouettes, plus the frame behavior. It doesn't describe the exact format of the silhouettes or coordinate system, but that is unlikely to prevent a correct selection or invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds mild context for frame ('chooses the pose to look at') but this largely restates the schema's 'Animated trials only' and keyframe information. It adds no meaningful detail about forge_handle beyond the schema.

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 a specific verb ('Look at') and resource ('your work'), and elaborates with concrete observable outputs: world bounding boxes and front/side text silhouettes. It also clarifies a key non-goal (does not reveal referee checks), but it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 phrase 'Look at your work' clearly implies when to use the tool: to inspect the current forge state. It gives an explicit exclusion ('Does not reveal the referee's checks') and usage guidance for the frame parameter in animated trials. However, it never names alternative tools, which the top tier requires.

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