List forges

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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: the operation requires admin privileges, and the returned forge_id is a dependency for other tools. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, access requirement, and downstream usability. The most important information is front-loaded, with no redundant filler.

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 straightforward paginated list operation, the description covers authorization, purpose, and how the result is used by sibling tools. The output schema and annotations handle the remaining structural and safety details, leaving no critical gap for an agent to infer.

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%, so the parameters are fully documented in the input schema. The description does not add any parameter-level detail beyond the schema, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('the forges this Woodpecker authenticates against'), plus a clear access scope ('Admin only'). It also signals the output's downstream use, making it distinct from get_forge, create_forge, update_forge, and delete_forge.

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 provides clear context: admin-only access and a concrete use case (obtaining forge_id for get_user and delete_user). It does not explicitly contrast with get_forge or state when not to use it, but the listing role is strongly implied by the name and wording.

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