ForgeSpec Capabilities

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

Annotations indicate readOnly and idempotent, which the description does not contradict. The description does not add any additional side-effect information beyond what the annotations already convey, which is acceptable given the annotations are present. However, it could benefit from noting that negotiation is non-destructive.

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 a single, concise sentence that gets straight to the point without any fluff or redundant phrasing. It efficiently communicates the tool's high-level purpose.

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 a nested schema and an enum for requested_mode, indicating complexity. However, the description does not elaborate on the negotiation flow, expected return values, or how the parameters interact. Given the absence of an output schema, the description should provide more context about what the tool accomplishes and what information is exchanged, which it does not.

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?

The input schema has no descriptions for any parameters (client, required, requested_mode). The tool description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they influence the negotiation. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent without guidance on how to construct valid arguments.

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: to negotiate ForgeSpec capabilities, covering coordination mode, schemas, features, and limits. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tb_* or sdd_*, which likely serve different functions. However, it could be more explicit about the outcome or result of the negotiation process.

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 no information about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any prerequisites, context, or scenarios where this tool is appropriate. The lack of usage guidance makes it difficult for an agent to decide when to invoke it.

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