forget_file

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 mentions 'Remove a file from tracking,' implying a mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is reversible, requires specific permissions, affects file content, or has side effects like rate limits. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two concise sentences that directly state the purpose and usage without waste. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information efficiently.

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 complexity (simple mutation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic action and context but lacks details on behavioral aspects like effects or prerequisites, leaving gaps for an agent to understand full implications.

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% for the single parameter 'path,' which is documented as 'Path to the file to forget.' The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, as it doesn't elaborate on path formats or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Remove') and resource ('file from tracking'), and distinguishes it from siblings like edit_file or write_file by focusing on cleanup rather than content manipulation. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from file_status or peek_file in terms of tracking removal versus status checking.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning 'Useful for cleanup or when you no longer need a file's interface in context,' which suggests when to use it. However, it lacks explicit alternatives (e.g., when not to use it vs. delete operations) or clear differentiation from sibling tools like file_status for tracking management.

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