mne_make_forward

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden and does disclose important side effects: 'Downloads the fsaverage template once (~ tens of MB)' and 'Stored under fwd_name'. It does not detail prerequisites (like a montage being set) or potential overwriting behavior, but the disclosed download and storage behavior is valuable.

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 four succinct sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, download behavior, use case, and output storage. It is front-loaded with the core action and avoids redundancy or filler.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and zero parameter schema coverage, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, and key side effects. The existence of an output schema covers return values. However, it does not explicitly state prerequisites (e.g., that the object must already have a montage), which would improve completeness for an agent.

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 explain parameters. It does: 'named object's montage' clarifies that the 'name' parameter refers to the source object, and 'Stored under fwd_name' specifies the destination parameter. Both parameters gain meaningful semantics beyond the raw 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 opens with a specific verb 'Build' and resource 'template-head (fsaverage) EEG forward model', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like mne_apply_inverse or mne_compute_noise_cov. It also adds use-case context ('for EEG source localization without an individual MRI'), further clarifying its unique role.

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 an explicit use case ('Use for EEG source localization without an individual MRI') and notes a practical consideration (downloads template). However, it does not name an alternative tool for when an MRI is available or explicitly state when not to use this tool, leaving the exclusion inferred.

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