Tap

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

Adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it discloses the operation loads content 'into memory' (side effect), specifies the return value ('content hash'), and explains the purpose of that return value ('change tracking'). Annotations only provide boolean safety hints, while the description adds the actual operational semantics.

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?

Three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: operation definition, prerequisite instruction, and return value disclosure. No redundancy or filler. Information is front-loaded with the core action.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description compensates by fully documenting the return value (content hash) and its purpose. It covers prerequisites, operation semantics, and output, making it complete despite the simple schema.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context that the path should point to a file 'written first' (temporal semantics) and reinforces the expected file extension (.tap.js), adding meaning beyond the schema's path definition.

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 uses specific verbs ('Load') and identifies the exact resource ('.tap.js file') and purpose ('for verification'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like forge_save and forge_verify by positioning itself as the memory-loading step in the workflow.

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?

Provides explicit prerequisite instruction ('Write the tap code to a file first, then pass the path here'), establishing the workflow sequence. Lacks explicit 'when-not-to-use' or alternative naming, but the workflow context provides clear usage boundaries.

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