fileforge_coding_action

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds three pieces of genuine behavioral context: it opens pages in the caller's session, results can be persisted, and it requires the browser extension. It does not flag that includeStorage captures unredacted client storage (only the schema says so), nor any rate/timeout behavior, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Five short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then per-action summary, then the alternative, then prerequisites. The per-action enumeration partially duplicates the action enum's own descriptions, but it is compact and each sentence carries routing or constraint information.

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 19-parameter multi-mode tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers the dispatch model, the four modes, the side effect of opening pages, persistence, and the extension prerequisite — everything an agent needs to decide and invoke correctly. Detailed parameter behavior is correctly delegated to the 100%-covered schema.

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 action enum description already documents required parameters per mode (baseUrl, routes, url) in detail, so the description has little room to add meaning. It contributes no syntax, defaults, or interaction rules beyond what the schema states, which is the expected baseline when the schema carries the load.

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 opening sentence names a specific capability ('get context for fixing code in one call') and the body enumerates the four dispatch modes (inspect_page, audit_routes, bug_context, article_context) with what each returns. It explicitly contrasts with fileforge_qa_testing, but does not distinguish itself from heavily overlapping siblings such as fileforge_devtools_action, fileforge_scrape_action, fileforge_a11y_action, or fileforge_api_action.

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 an explicit routing rule for one alternative ('Use fileforge_qa_testing for pass/fail checks'), which tells the agent when NOT to use this tool. Per-action selection guidance lives mostly in the schema's action enum rather than the description, and no other sibling exclusions are offered, so the coverage is real but partial.

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