get_form_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful output context — the markup is paste-ready and contains the real endpoint — but says nothing about error behavior for a nonexistent formId, auth/permission requirements, or whether output is cached/deterministic. Partial disclosure, not a contradiction.

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 short sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns, the second constrains the tech argument. Every clause earns its place with zero filler.

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 two-parameter read-style tool with no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back but omits the two things an agent most needs: the meaning/lookup of the required formId and the default behavior when tech is omitted. Adequate minimum viability, not complete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It merely restates the tech enum that is already fully enumerated in the schema (adding no new semantic meaning, not even a default) and says nothing at all about formId — its format, where to obtain it, or whether it must reference an existing form. The required parameter is entirely undocumented.

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 the resource (form markup for one form), the form it produces (paste-ready markup) and a distinguishing trait (embeds the real endpoint), which separates it from siblings like get_form_stats or create_form. The verb is implicit in the get_ prefix but the output is concrete and specific enough for an agent to select it correctly.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool to call when it needs embeddable code for a form, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives among the seven siblings. The absence of any prerequisite (e.g. the form must already exist) leaves selection to inference.

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