فرم‌های درخواست

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: submissions become tracked tasks in the form's project, and template_id mode returns field metadata (param_id, title, type, required). It does not discuss pagination or return shape for the plain-list mode.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the resource and its dual behavior; nothing is padded. The parenthetical Persian gloss duplicates the title, a minor redundancy, and the third sentence packs two ideas together.

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 one optional parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers both modes and the downstream effect of submissions well enough for correct invocation. Only the plain-list return format is left unstated, which is a minor omission.

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 100%, so the schema already explains template_id and its purpose, making the baseline 3. The description adds some value by enumerating the field attributes returned in template_id mode, but it does not add syntax or constraints beyond that.

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?

Names a specific resource (request forms) and clarifies the two modes: a plain list of forms you can submit, and a template_id mode that reveals that form's fields. The examples (leave, purchase) and the note that submissions become tracked tasks make the resource concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling mizito_list_templates, which is the only real gap.

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?

States the purpose of the optional template_id argument and names the follow-on tool (mizito_submit_request_form), giving an agent a clear workflow: inspect fields here, submit there. No explicit when-not guidance or comparison to sibling listing tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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