Forge API Read (any endpoint)

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds that writes are impossible, some reads (like .env contents) are refused, and gives examples of endpoints, significantly expanding behavioral context beyond 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?

The description is well-structured and each sentence adds value, though slightly longer than necessary; could be more concise while maintaining clarity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains allowed endpoints, refused operations, and parameter usage, providing sufficient context for an AI to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial value: explains path must be relative to API base, no query string in path, provides example path, and describes query parameter usage with examples.

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 'Perform an arbitrary GET against the Forge API for endpoints the named tools do not cover', with specific examples (monitors, firewall rules, etc.), and distinguishes it from sibling tools by indicating it covers endpoints not covered by named 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 states when to use this tool (for endpoints not covered by named tools) and when not to use it (writes are impossible, certain sensitive reads are refused with explanation), providing clear guidance on alternatives.

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