Wyszukaj operacje Forge API

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by stating the tool scans all 273 operations and returns matches with parameter schemas, which clarifies the return behavior without contradicting the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place: what it does, when to use it, and example queries. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

With a read-only, idempotent annotation profile and a fully documented schema, the description covers what the tool returns ('dopasowania wraz ze schematem parametrow') and how it fits into the broader workflow. Nothing needed for correct selection and invocation is missing.

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 schema already documents query, tag, and limit. The description reinforces query usage with concrete examples like 'certificate' and 'firewall', but it does not add meaningful semantics for tag or limit beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 it searches all 273 Laravel Forge API operations and returns matches with parameter schemas. It uses a specific verb ('Przeszukuje') and resource, and it is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like forge_call or forge_get_server because it is explicitly positioned as the discovery mechanism for operations without dedicated tools.

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 explicitly says to use this tool when the needed operation does not have its own forge_* tool and to follow up with forge_call. This provides a clear routing rule and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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