fire_sandbox

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool makes an HTTP POST to a sandbox endpoint, hashes the response, and anchors it on Solana mainnet. It also mentions the lifetime limit of 10 fires. This is sufficient transparency for a demo tool, though it could specify authorization needs or potential costs (but the 'Free tier' note implies no cost).

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 and well-structured: first paragraph states purpose and output, second explains the process, third gives usage guidelines. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage context, parameter semantics, behavior, and output. An output schema exists, and the description adequately explains the return values (echo body, tx_signature, verify_url). No gaps for this tool's complexity.

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 descriptions. The tool description adds value by explaining how parameters are used in the request (e.g., 'POSTs {message, condition: condition_text, ts}'), which goes beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool's purpose: 'Demo the full Forge watch→fire→settle loop against a built-in sandbox endpoint.' It uses specific verbs and resources, and the context distinguishes it from sibling tools which focus on automations and queries. No tautology.

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 includes a 'USE WHEN' section that explicitly states when to use the tool: 'a developer is evaluating Forge... without onboarding any machines or paying for the Pro tier.' It provides clear context but does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives beyond the implicit context of sibling tools.

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