Read form design

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context by explaining that properties left at their defaults are not stored and therefore not listed, which helps an agent avoid misinterpreting missing properties as an incomplete result. This goes beyond what the annotations alone provide.

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 two compact sentences with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and outcome, then adds a key caveat about default properties and practical use cases. Every sentence earns its place.

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-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations already present, this description is complete. It explains what is read, the relevant detail about default properties, and practical scenarios, while the output schema covers return-value structure. No critical information needed to call or interpret the tool is missing.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the parameters file_path, form_name, and include_properties are already well documented. The description does not add extra parameter-level guidance beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 without needing to compensate for coverage gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Reads one form's design,' and enumerates exactly what an agent can expect—controls, names, types, containers, and developer-set properties. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like xlide_list_forms and xlide_edit_form by focusing on reading a single form's design rather than listing or modifying forms.

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 provides clear use cases: 'understand a form's layout' and 'see which control an event procedure belongs to.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, such as using xlide_manage_form or xlide_edit_form when modification is needed, so it falls short of a 5.

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