forge_describe

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return content (full input schema and usage example) and the prerequisite parameter source, which is useful context. However, it does not describe error behavior for invalid tool names, response format, or any limitations, leaving meaningful gaps.

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?

Two tight sentences with no waste. The core action is front-loaded, followed immediately by the prerequisite, making it easy to scan and act on.

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 is simple, requires one parameter, has full schema coverage, and no output schema. The description states what is returned (schema and usage example) and how to obtain the required input, so it is complete enough for correct invocation.

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%, and the schema already documents that 'tool_name' is the exact tool name from forge_discover. The description reinforces this prerequisite but adds no new parameter detail beyond what the schema provides. 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: getting the full input schema and usage example for a ForgeMCP tool. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling forge_discover by explaining that discovery comes first. An agent can identify exactly what this tool returns without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear context and a prerequisite: 'Call forge_discover first to find tool names.' This tells the agent when this tool is applicable. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or present alternative paths, so it falls short of a 5.

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