forge_inspect

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

Annotations are readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true. Description adds detail that probe_writes has zero side effects and emphasizes discovery without execution. No contradictions, and description complements annotations well.

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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose, then secondary use, parameter tip, and authoring principle. It is front-loaded and informative, though slightly lengthy. Still earns a 4.

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 tool's purpose (analysis), the description covers main outputs, parameter usage, and authoring principles. No output schema, but the description mentions default return values. Adequate for the 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 description coverage is 67% (probe_writes and detail have descriptions; url does not). The description adds context for probe_writes and detail, but does not significantly extend beyond what the schema provides for those parameters. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 analyzes pages for tap forging, detects framework/SSR/APIs, and generates extraction strategies. It also distinguishes between initial analysis and re-forging broken taps, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to re-forge (broken taps) and how to use probe_writes. It mentions reading existing_taps first, but does not fully distinguish this tool from all siblings like inspect, though context implies it's for page analysis.

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