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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description warns that the tool returns sensitive config (secrets, DB credentials, API keys), adding valuable behavioral context. This helps the agent understand the security implications of using the tool.

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 two sentences and a warning emoji. However, including the specific API endpoint (Forge v2: GET ...) adds some verbosity without clear benefit for an AI agent, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's simplicity (3 string params, no output schema) and the presence of annotations (readOnlyHint), the description covers the key purpose and sensitivity. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., the .env file contents as a string), which would enhance completeness.

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%, with each parameter (site, server, organization) described adequately in the schema. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, providing only an API endpoint format that hints at parameter roles. Baseline 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?

The description clearly states 'Get a site's .env file content,' which is a specific verb+resource. Among sibling tools like forge_get_site or forge_get_server, this tool is uniquely identified by its focus on the .env file, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 mentions the return of sensitive data, but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_get_site. There is no 'when-not-to-use' advice or mention of prerequisites, so usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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