forge_inspect

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description confirms that probe_writes discovers write actions without executing them (zero side effects), aligning with annotations. It also describes detection of framework, SSR state, APIs, and extraction strategies, adding behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 efficiently structured: first paragraph states primary and secondary use, second paragraph provides authoring principles. No wasted words, every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with main purpose.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description clearly explains what the tool returns (top candidates + confidence + status, plus extra sections via detail). It covers purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, and behavioral traits, making it self-contained for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

Adds significant meaning beyond the input schema: probe_writes is explained in detail (discovers write actions via abort intercept, zero side effects); the detail parameter is fully explained with values like 'structure' and 'deep' including what they compute. For url, the schema lacks description but the tool context makes it clear. This compensates for the 67% schema coverage.

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 it analyzes a page for tap forging, detects framework, SSR state, APIs, and generates extraction strategies. It also specifies re-forging broken taps, providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from siblings like forge_draft, forge_save, and inspect.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (for initial inspection and re-forging broken taps), how to use probe_writes for zero side effects, and provides authoring principles with order of preference (API > SSR > DOM) and guidance to compose with existing taps via handle.pipe. This gives clear context on usage and alternatives.

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