List Forms

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's useful addition is that results span both system-provided and workspace-owned forms. It says nothing about pagination behavior or how large the result set can be, so it adds only modest context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is appropriate for a simple list tool, though the space saved was not reinvested in paging or scoping detail.

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 no-required-param list tool with annotations and no output schema, this is minimally adequate. Gaps remain around pagination, what distinguishes system forms from workspace forms in the response, and whether the list is filtered by anything implied by 'for a send'.

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% for two parameters (limit, offset) whose defaults, maximums, and pagination semantics are undocumented anywhere. The description does not compensate — it never mentions paging, result caps, or how to retrieve more than the first page.

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?

Specific verb and resource: lists forms, scoped to 'system and workspace' and 'for a send'. That distinguishes it from get_form/create_form/update_form/delete_form by operation type, though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

'for a send' implies the scenario (picking a form to attach to an outbound send), but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of how it relates to get_form for detail lookup, and no stated prerequisites.

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