forms_get_forms

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as whether the result is paginated, what the response looks like, or any side effects. The description is silent where it could add value.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It adds no useful information and does not earn its place. A one-word description would be equally informative, so it fails to leverage brevity effectively.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling that returns submissions, the description is completely inadequate. It does not mention what the tool returns, how pagination works, what 'type' refers to, or how it relates to forms_get_forms_submissions. An agent cannot correctly call this tool without external knowledge.

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 provides no information about parameters. The input schema covers only 50% of parameters (limit and locationId have descriptions; skip and type do not). With such low schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining the parameters, but it does not. Agents are left without guidance on how to use skip or type.

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 'Get Forms' is essentially a tautology of the tool name forms_get_forms. It names a generic verb and resource but provides no specifics about what forms are returned, how they are filtered, or how this differs from the sibling forms_get_forms_submissions. It does not distinguish itself clearly from the other forms 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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus forms_get_forms_submissions or any other sibling. There is no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. An agent would have to infer entirely from the name.

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