Tap

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

Annotations cover safety profile (idempotent, non-destructive, not read-only). Description adds valuable behavioral context: it affects multiple runtime types and avoids daemon restarts. Does not mention failure modes or return values, but aligns perfectly with 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?

Three sentences with zero waste: first defines the operation, second provides negative guidance (when not to use), third provides positive guidance (when to use). Perfectly structured and appropriately sized.

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 zero parameters and clear idempotent push semantics, the description is nearly complete. Lacks description of return values or error states, but this is minor for a simple synchronization tool with no output 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?

Input schema has zero parameters. Per rubric, zero-parameter tools baseline at 4. The description appropriately requires no additional parameter explanation.

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 specific action (push updated taps), target (all connected runtimes: extension, Playwright), and method (without restarting daemon). It effectively distinguishes itself from automatic save mechanisms by mentioning forge.save.

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?

Excellent guidance: explicitly states when NOT to use it ('Normally not needed — forge.save auto-notifies'), names the alternative tool (forge.save), and specifies exact trigger conditions ('after manual tap file edits or tap update').

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