anvil.forge

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add useful behavioral context: 'Fully offline' and 'no LLM involved' tell the agent this is a deterministic keyword/pattern-mapping tool, not a semantic engine — so complex or unusual phrasing may fail to map. However, it doesn't disclose failure behavior (what happens when the kernel cannot map the intent), the reversibility of the operation, or limitations of the mapping quality.

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?

A single sentence with zero wasted words. Purpose is front-loaded ('Forge a simulation blueprint from a plain-language intent'), followed by the key behavioral constraint ('Fully offline — no LLM involved') and the output shape (nodes, edges, params). Every clause earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must compensate. It does partially — mentioning the output structure (nodes, edges, params) gives agents a picture of the return value. But it omits failure modes (kernel mapping misses), error behavior, and any quality caveats about the mapping, which matter for an offline keyword-driven tool where free-form intents may not resolve.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented (domain lists a 12-value enum and its optional-hint semantics; intent includes concrete examples like 'a simple RC low-pass filter'). The tool description adds nothing beyond the schema — it only restates that words map to a schematic, which is consistent with intent's semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb ('Forge') and resource ('simulation blueprint') and describes the mechanism ('maps your words to a domain schematic (nodes, edges, params)'). The purpose is clear and distinct from siblings anvil.domains, anvil.solve, and anvil.export, though it never names them explicitly. Loses a point for not drawing the sibling contrast.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus anvil.domains, anvil.solve, or anvil.export. No exclusions, no conditional routing, no statement of what scenarios this tool is for vs. the others. The only usage hint is in the schema's domain description ('Optional domain hint'), which concerns parameter selection, not tool selection.

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