Show Form

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: read-only confirmation, return type 'single JSON object', defaulting of project_id, and detailed error payload behavior with common HTTP statuses (401, 403, 404). No contradiction with 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?

The description is detailed but efficient, front-loading the purpose and usage. It contains some redundancy with annotations ('Read-only') and schema ('Required parameters: project_id, id'), but every sentence contributes useful information without unnecessary fluff.

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 simple read tool with two required parameters and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, usage criteria, parameter resolution, defaults, return format, error behavior, and API endpoint. This fully equips an agent to select and 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 already covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining that project_id defaults to the value set by procore_set_config and that id must identify an existing record resolved via the list tool. This extra guidance helps correct invocation.

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 'Return detailed information on the specified Form' and specifies 'Use this when you already know which form you want and need its full field set.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_forms_on_a_project, create_form, update_form, and delete_form.

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?

It explicitly tells when to use this tool ('when you already know which form you want') and directs the agent to 'resolve it with the matching list tool first.' It also explains the default behavior of project_id from procore_set_config, providing practical invocation guidance.

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