Get a forge

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructiveness, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: access is restricted to admins, and the OAuth client secret is deliberately excluded from the read model and never returned. These disclosures help an agent set permissions expectations and avoid assuming sensitive data is present.

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 compact and effective: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second supplies the admin access constraint plus an important privacy caveat. There is no filler or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, a full input schema, strong annotations, and an output schema, the description provides all necessary additional context. It covers access control and a critical data-exclusion behavior, leaving no obvious gap for a caller to 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?

The input schema fully documents forge_id as a required integer with a numeric range and description. Since schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much. The tool description's focus on 'one forge configuration' reinforces the parameter's role but adds no new meaning beyond the schema.

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 action with a specific verb and resource: 'Returns one forge configuration.' The singular 'one' and 'configuration' distinguish it from administrative write operations, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools like list_forges or update_forge, so it stops short of a 5.

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 implies the use case: retrieving a single forge configuration by id. It also gives an important access prerequisite with 'Admin only.' However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it, such as pointing to list_forges for multiple forges or update_forge for modifications.

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