Mne Make Forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the fsaverage template is downloaded once (~ tens of MB) and that the result is stored under fwd_name. However, it does not mention whether the input object is modified, whether a montage must be pre-set, or any side effects beyond storage. It adds some transparency but leaves gaps.

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 two sentences with no extraneous information. Purpose is front-loaded, and the download/storage details are efficiently conveyed. Every sentence 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 the output schema exists, the description need not explain return format. It covers purpose, use case, and storage location. However, it omits prerequisites such as the need for a montage to be set on the object, and whether the object is mutated. These are minor but could affect correct 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains 'name' as the 'named object' and 'fwd_name' as the storage location. This adds meaning beyond the schema defaults, but it does not elaborate on parameter types, ranges, or the relationship between them. The explanation is minimal but sufficient for basic usage.

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 the action (build), resource (template-head EEG forward model), and context (for the named object's montage). It distinguishes from siblings like mne_apply_inverse or mne_compute_noise_cov by focusing on forward modeling. However, it does not explicitly specify the object type (e.g., evoked, raw) despite the 'name' parameter defaulting to 'evoked'.

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use for EEG source localization without an individual MRI.' This implies when to use and suggests alternatives when an MRI is available. It does not list explicit exclusions or alternative tools, but the context is sufficient for an agent to decide appropriately.

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