Tap

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

Annotations declare readOnly/idempotent safety, so the description appropriately focuses on content semantics rather than safety. It adds valuable behavioral context about what data the logs contain (error fields, row counts, timing) and how to interpret patterns ('Consistently 0 rows'), which is beyond the annotations' scope.

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?

Four sentences with zero waste: purpose declaration, parameter hint, primary use case with data pointers, and escalation rule. Information is front-loaded and each sentence earns its place. No redundancy with structured fields.

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 lack of output schema, the description effectively compensates by describing what diagnostic signals to look for in the results. Combined with clear annotations and sibling context, this provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool, though explicitly mentioning the default limit of 50 would have been ideal.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry full parameter documentation. It explicitly explains the 'site' parameter ('Filter by site to narrow results'), but fails to mention the 'limit' parameter at all. Partial compensation for a high-need schema gap warrants a middle score.

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 ('Read') and resource ('tap execution history'), and clarifies scope with '(run + forge events)'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from action-oriented siblings like tap_run or tap_click, establishing it as a historical query tool.

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 when-to-use guidance ('Use to diagnose failures') and specific diagnostic criteria ('check error fields, row counts, timing'). Critically, it names the exact alternative tool to use when this one is insufficient ('use forge.inspect to re-forge'), creating a clear decision tree.

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