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?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return structure (form name, ID, field definitions) and implies safe read-only operation by listing forms. Lacks explicit mention of no side effects or authentication needs, but sufficient for a simple list operation.
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 sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence immediately states the core verb and resource. The second adds practical guidance. Highly efficient and 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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior and output. It clearly states what it returns and how to use it in a workflow (before submit_form). No gaps.
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?
No parameters exist (0 params, 100% schema coverage). Baseline for 0 params is 4, and description adds no parameter info, which is acceptable as there is nothing to explain.
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 contact/signup forms and specifies exactly what is returned: form name, ID, and field definitions. This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from siblings.
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 to use before submit_form to discover fields, providing clear when-to-use context and referencing a sibling tool. However, does not mention when not to use or any alternative tools among siblings.
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.
Tools are mostly distinct with clear descriptions. Some overlap in actions that require user to click a link (create_booking, create_checkout, request_reservation, etc.), but each targets a different domain (booking, store, restaurant, event tickets, RSVP). Minor ambiguity possible but descriptions clarify.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., create_booking, get_availability, search_places). No deviations or mixed conventions.
28 tools is slightly high for a neighborhood directory, but each serves a specific function (search, booking, events, movies, offers, etc.). The scope justifies the count, though some tools like list_blog_posts and list_faqs might be considered niche.
The tool set covers search, place details, categories, menus, events, movies, offers, booking, and forms. Missing update/delete operations for places or user management, but these are likely out of scope for a read-only directory. Core queries and actions are well-supported.
