List available contact/signup forms on this site (Wix Forms). Returns form name, ID, and field definitions (label, type, required). Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or safe, but the nature of listing forms implies no side effects. The description could benefit from mentioning it is non-destructive.
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 succinct sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence defines the purpose and output, the second provides usage guidance. Structure is ideal for quick comprehension.
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's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description fully covers what an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, and when to use it. No gaps are evident.
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 tool has no parameters, and the description enriches the understanding by detailing what the response includes (form name, ID, field definitions with label, type, required). This goes beyond the baseline expectation of 4 for zero-parameter tools by providing concrete output structure.
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 lists available contact/signup forms (Wix Forms) and specifies the returned data (name, ID, field definitions). It distinguishes itself from other list tools by focusing on forms and from submit_form by being a preparatory tool.
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?
Explicitly states 'Use before submit_form to discover which fields to fill,' providing a clear usage context and linking to a sibling tool. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given, but the guidance is direct and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that prevent ambiguity. Overlaps like create_booking vs request_reservation are clarified by domain (appointments vs restaurant) and mechanics.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_booking, list_events, search_places). The same conjugation style (snake_case) is used throughout, with no mixing of conventions.
At 28 tools, the set is slightly larger than the typical well-scoped range (3-15), but each tool corresponds to a distinct feature of the neighborhood directory, making the count reasonable for the breadth of functionality.
The tool surface covers all major user-facing actions: searching, browsing, booking, purchasing, and retrieving information. No obvious gaps exist for the stated purpose of a neighborhood directory.
