forgepilot_community_bridge_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the key trait that this is read-only (non-mutating, safe to call), which is meaningful for a planning tool, but it says nothing about whether the plan is cached, whether it queries live systems, or what it returns.

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?

A single tight sentence with the operation front-loaded and the safety qualifier at the end. It is appropriately sized, though the block of proper nouns is dense and reads as a feature dump rather than clarifying prose.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description does not need to explain inputs or return values, so it is nearly sufficient. However, the opaque target names and the absence of any routing guidance to sibling planning tools leave a competent agent guessing about scope.

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 tool takes zero parameters, which is the baseline-4 case. Schema coverage is reported at 100% with no fields to describe, so there is no semantic gap for the description to fill.

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 pairs the verb 'Show' with a specific resource ('the ... connection plan'), making it a read/retrieve operation rather than a mutation. This distinguishes it from the sibling forgepilot_create_community_bridge_pack, which produces an artifact. It falls short of 5 because the enumerated targets (ARC, awgym, awrelay, Relay, Forums, Spaces, AwDesk) are unexplained jargon that an agent cannot map to concrete meaning.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus the closely related forgepilot_backend_switch_plan, forgepilot_local_acceleration_plan, or forgepilot_create_community_bridge_pack. 'Read-only' hints at a safe inspection context but no prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are given.

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