forgepilot_local_acceleration_plan

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state 'Read-only,' which is a meaningful behavioral trait (no mutation of local environment), but it omits auth requirements, side effects on the local system, and any output shape details.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the core action and appending the safety trait last. No filler, though the technical jargon slightly reduces scannability.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It states what it inspects and roughly what it returns, but leaves the parameter meaning and the contents/format of the returned plan unspecified, which is a notable gap for a plan-generating tool.

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 single 'model' parameter has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains what the parameter controls or its accepted values. The phrase 'Bonsai model activation plan' hints at models in general but does not clarify the parameter, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names specific verbs (inspect presence, return plan) and resources (local aw* commands/packages, Bonsai model activation plan for Codex/Claude Code), which distinguishes it from generic siblings like forgepilot_health or forgepilot_chat. It is clear, though the jargon-laden phrasing and lack of a direct sibling comparison keep it 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no routing against alternative plan tools such as forgepilot_backend_switch_plan or forgepilot_community_bridge_plan. Usage can only be inferred from the purpose statement.

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