List forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: it specifies that the output includes control counts and, for Access, the sections a control can go in, and it clarifies that the design's code is a separate module. No contradictions 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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the primary action, and includes a useful pointer to the related module-reading tool. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It explains what is listed, the extra details provided, and the relationship to code modules. The annotations cover safety, so nothing essential is missing 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% with a clear description for file_path ('Absolute path to the Office file'). The description adds meaning by clarifying that the tool also handles Access databases, which is not explicit in the schema's 'Office file' phrasing. This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 action: lists UserForms in Office files or forms and reports in Access databases, with specifics like control counts and sections. It distinguishes this from sibling listing tools by naming the resource type (forms/reports) and the follow-up tool (xlide_read_module) for reading the associated code module.

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 implies usage by defining the tool's scope (Office vs. Access) and mentions a companion tool (xlide_read_module) for reading the design's code. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with similar listing tools like xlide_list_modules or xlide_read_form. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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