Get Form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the response includes the template plus its editable fields, which is modestly useful context about what comes back, but it says nothing about failure behavior for invalid or deleted form IDs.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource named up front and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity is closer to terseness than to well-structured completeness.

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 one-parameter read tool whose annotations cover the safety profile, this is close to adequate; the notable omission is that there is no output schema and the description gives only a phrase ('editable fields') about the return shape. An agent could call it, but with limited expectations about the payload.

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 carries the full burden of explaining the single parameter — and it never mentions form_id, its integer type, or where to obtain a valid ID. It is only inferable from the tool name and typical REST conventions, which is a real gap given the schema documents nothing.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('one form template') and scopes it to a single record, which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_forms. No sibling is named explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

'Read one form template' implies retrieval of an existing form by identifier, which is sufficient to select it over list_forms in obvious cases. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not statements, no prerequisites, and no mention of the other form siblings (create_form, update_form, delete_form).

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