cf_tools

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

Annotations already encode destructiveHint=true, and the description appropriately supports this by stating the tool can 'run' named tools with arguments. It also discloses important behavior: query returns full ready-to-call schemas)Skip; these are exactly WHAT the schema already says, but the description adds the meta-context that this tool can have destructive effects because it can run arbitrary hidden tools. A 4 seems high but justified; only minor lack is explicit caution/warning or side-effect caveats, which annotations already flag.

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, front-loaded with the most important directive (search before concluding absence), then mode details. No filler or redundant restatement of schema 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?

For a bridge/dispatcher tool, the description covers the full calling pattern: when to use it, how to search, what search returns, and how to execute. No output schema exists, but the description states the key return behavior (full schemas). Coupled with 100% schema coverage and strong annotations, nothing essential is missing.

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%, so the schema already explains all three parameters. The description adds semantic clarity beyond raw parameter names by explaining how query, name, and args interrelate (e.g., name must come from a previous query result and defines the execution mode). It correctly avoids re-listing parameter mechanics.

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 identifies the tool as a discovery-and-execution gateway for 59 ContextForge capabilities absent from the visible tool list. Its phrase 'not in your tool list' and enumeration of capability areas (git sync, spaces, projects, etc.) distinguish it from sibling memory/task tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent to search here before concluding a ContextForge capability doesn't exist, and precisely differentiates the two modes: query for searching (returns schemas) versus name plus args for execution. No ambiguity about when or how to invoke.

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