forge_call

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add real behavioral traits: a store lookup precedes execution, and timeout + truncation are applied. However, it does not quantify the timeout/truncation, describe error behavior when the tool is missing, or warn that the executed tool's side effects are unknown to the agent. The disclosure is meaningful but incomplete.

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 short sentences with the action front-loaded before the mechanism; there is no filler or redundancy. Every clause earns its place, though the behavioral specifics could be expanded without hurting structure.

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 dynamic dispatch tool with nested args, no output schema, and no annotations, the description omits several things an agent needs: return format, error/not-found behavior, the prerequisite that the tool must exist in the store, and the fact that args are validated against the target tool's schema. The mechanism is sketched, but the call contract is incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps 'by name' to toolName and 'with args' to args. It never explains that args must conform to the target tool's schema or that toolName must reference a tool already in the store. This leaves the agent guessing about how to construct a valid invocation.

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+resource: 'Call a forged tool by name with args,' which clearly identifies this as the dispatcher in the forged-tool trio and contrasts with the sibling add/list operations. The mechanism clause ('loads tool JSON from store') adds further specificity. However, it never explicitly names the siblings, so differentiation is left to inference from the tool-name set.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The clause 'loads tool JSON from store' implies the tool must already be registered (via forge_add), which is useful only as implied usage context. An explicit note about prerequisite registration and listing available tools via forge_list would make this actionable.

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