Superforms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states it creates an answer link, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as destructive nature, required permissions, rate limits, or side effects beyond creation. Minimal transparency.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of two sentences with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the key action, earning a high score for conciseness.

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 complexity (13 parameters, no output schema, nested objects), the description is too minimal. It does not explain return values, prerequisites, or how this tool relates to siblings beyond being an alias. Incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 has 46% parameter description coverage, but the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is in the schema. For a tool with many parameters, the description should compensate but does not.

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 tool creates a 'voice-first Superforms answer link for human input' and notes it is an alias for create_form. Purpose is specific, but it does not differentiate from sibling create_feedback_form, leaving some ambiguity.

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 only mentions it is a backward-compatible alias for create_form, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_feedback_form or create_form. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use advice.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'voice-first' and 'optional smart follow-ups' but does not disclose whether creation is idempotent, destructive, or requires specific permissions. No details on side effects or limitations.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key features. It is front-loaded with the main action and type, though additional structure could improve readability.

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 complexity (13 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is minimal. It does not explain return values, behavior, prerequisites, or provide examples, leaving significant gaps for the agent.

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 only 46%, and several parameters (goal, title, context, persistent, followUpMode, responseMode, questionContext, creationSessionUrl) lack descriptions. The description only implies the followUpMode via 'smart follow-ups' but does not clarify other parameters. It does not compensate for the low coverage.

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 creates a voice-first feedback form for various use cases like feedback, cancellation, feature request, survey, or research. The verb 'Create' and resource 'feedback form' are specific, but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like create_ask or create_form, though the specialization is implied.

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 lists the types of forms it can create, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_ask or create_form. No exclusions or conditional usage advice is given.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions creation and piping of responses, but does not address potential side effects, authorization needs, or rate limits. The description is too brief to be fully transparent.

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 a single sentence, making it concise, but it lacks structure. It does not front-load key information or present content in an organized way.

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 13 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits details about return values, required parameters, and response handling.

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 low (46%), yet the description adds no additional meaning to any parameter. The tool has 13 parameters, but the description does not clarify their semantics beyond what is in 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 that the tool creates a voice-first form link to collect answers and pipe responses back to the agent. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like create_ask or create_feedback_form.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as create_ask or create_feedback_form. The description lacks any context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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

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

No annotations are present, so the description must bear the burden. It states 'fetch persisted raw responses' implying read-only, but does not disclose return format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication prerequisites beyond the schema.

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 very brief with no wasted words, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is appropriately front-loaded but incomplete for a tool with no output schema and no annotations.

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 complexity of three parameters and missing annotations, the description is grossly insufficient. It fails to provide parameter semantics, usage context, or behavioral traits beyond the bare minimum.

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 description does not explain any of the three parameters (askId, since, agentToken) despite 0% schema coverage. The agent cannot infer their meaning or formats from the description alone.

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 identifies the action ('Fetch') and the resource ('persisted raw responses for a Superforms ask'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with creation or listing of asks.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_asks' or 'watch_ask'. The analogy to an HTTP bridge endpoint is not sufficient to inform usage context.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the action as 'join', implying a non-destructive operation, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or what happens after joining. This is insufficient for a tool with no 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 concise with two sentences, no fluff. The most critical information (action, resource, usage context) is front-loaded.

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 simple join tool with no output schema, the description provides workflow context ('before creating the real form') and a useful parameter hint. However, it does not explain what the session is, how joining works, or what to do after, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds significant meaning for agentName by specifying it should be a client name and providing examples. However, it gives no additional info for creationSessionUrl, leaving its purpose and format unclear. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 tool's action (join) and resource (Superforms homepage creation handoff session), and provides context ('before creating the real form'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are in a different domain (asks/responses).

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 gives explicit context on when to use ('before creating the real form') and provides a concrete usage hint for the agentName parameter. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, though sibling tools are unrelated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It only says 'List recent asks' but does not define 'recent', mention pagination, rate limits, or confirm read-only nature. The return format is not described.

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 a single sentence, concise and front-loaded with the verb 'List'. Every word serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and minimal parameter info, the description is incomplete. It misses important operational details like response structure, error handling, and token usage, making it insufficient for reliable tool invocation.

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 sole parameter 'agentToken' has 0% schema description coverage. The description mentions it as a 'private agent token' but does not explain its format, origin, or constraints, leaving the agent with insufficient information.

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 ('List') and the resource ('asks') with the specific context of providing a private agent token. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_ask and get_responses, which are different operations.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or context for the agent token. Sibling tools exist but no differentiation is given.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Update' without disclosing behavioral traits like idempotency, side effects, or required permissions. Minimal disclosure beyond the verb.

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?

A single sentence of 19 words, front-loaded with the action and key objects. No redundant information; every word is purposeful.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It doesn't explain the 'homepage creation handoff draft' concept, the workflow, or return values. Incomplete for the tool's complexity.

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 low (40%), and the description only mentions 'title, questions, and settings' without adding meaning for the 6 undocumented parameters (e.g., goal, context, followUpMode). Does not compensate for schema gaps.

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 tool updates a 'homepage creation handoff draft' with 'form title, questions, and settings', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling creation tools (e.g., create_ask, create_form) which are for new entities.

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 phrase 'before the user clicks Set live' provides temporal context but no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or comparison to alternatives like create_form. Usage is implied but not fully delineated.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses waiting, reconnection, and catch-up via 'since', but does not detail timeout behavior beyond the parameter cap, error states, or permission requirements. The phrase 'wait briefly' contrasts with the 120s timeout cap.

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 concise with two sentences: first defines the main action, second adds a usage hint and an alternative. It is front-loaded and avoids redundancy, though the mention of HTTP bridge SSE could be seen as tangential.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief. It does not explain what the response data looks like, error handling, or whether the tool is blocking. The agent lacks information about return format and behavioral nuances.

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 40% (2 of 5 parameters described). The description adds context for 'since' (durable catch-up) and 'timeoutMs' (maximum wait), but provides no additional meaning for 'url', 'askId', or 'agentToken' beyond their types.

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 tool waits for responses and mentions reconnection handling, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_ask or list_asks. However, it could be more specific about what constitutes a 'response' and how it relates to the ask context.

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 provides some guidance: 'Use since for durable catch-up' and mentions an alternative SSE endpoint via HTTP bridge. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use directives, prerequisites, or exclusions relative to sibling tools.

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