List Recycled Project Forms

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explaining that the tool returns a paginated JSON array with metadata and that page/per_page controls pagination. It also mentions required parameters. The annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint) are consistent. However, it does not elaborate on openWorldHint implications, but no contradiction exists.

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 concise, consisting of a few sentences that front-load the purpose and use cases, followed by technical details. Every sentence adds value, and the structure is logical and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, 1 required, and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains pagination, filtering, and the required parameter. It also mentions the endpoint path. It could elaborate more on the response structure, but the information provided is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds limited value. It restates that project_id is required and mentions page/per_page for pagination, but these details are already in the schema. The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema offers.

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 clearly states the tool returns a collection of Recycled Forms for a specified Project. It specifies the verb (Returns), the resource (Recycled Forms), and the scope (for a specified Project). It also lists concrete use cases: enumerate forms for paginated overview, find IDs, filter by query parameters. This distinguishes it from other list tools that handle non-recycled resources.

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?

The description gives explicit guidance on when to use: 'Use this to enumerate Forms when you need a paginated overview, to find IDs, or to filter by query parameters.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use or provide alternatives, but the context of recycled forms implies it is for deleted items. The guidance is clear and helpful but lacks exclusionary details.

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