hubspot_list_forms

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not disclose why a listing action might be destructive or what side effects to expect. It adds only JWT/tenant/company routing context, which is useful but not behavioral transparency. It does not contradict the annotations, so no contradiction is flagged.

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 compact, front-loads the action name, and uses a clean Args structure for parameters. It avoids unnecessary prose, though the first sentence is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Overall it is appropriately sized for a simple dispatch-style tool.

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?

The output schema covers return shape, but the description still lacks essential selection and usage context: what HubSpot forms are being listed, what the dispatcher does beyond routing, and what the destructive annotation implies. An agent navigating this huge sibling list would struggle to know why this tool exists and when to invoke it.

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 for parameter meaning. It adds minimal generic semantics: `message` is a free-text objective and `inputs` is an optional JSON string of structured inputs. However, it gives no concrete guidance on what structured inputs `list_forms` expects or how to phrase the objective, so the agent is left guessing.

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 names the action being run (`list_forms`) and mentions the dispatcher, but it never explicitly states what the tool accomplishes in domain terms — e.g., that it retrieves HubSpot forms. The primary sentence largely restates the tool name ('Run the hubspot domain agent action `list_forms`'), which is tautological. It does add routing/scope context, but not enough to fully distinguish it from the many sibling `hubspot_*` list tools.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `hubspot_list_workflows`, `hubspot_list_campaigns`, or `dispatch_domain_agent`. The description does not state what forms are, why an agent would call this, or any exclusions/preconditions. An agent would have to infer usage solely from the tool name.

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