fluig_form_events

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions returning events with source but does not state that it is read-only, whether it requires specific permissions, or any potential side effects. Minimal information beyond the basic function.

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?

Single sentence that is clear and to the point. No wasted words; includes examples to clarify content. Perfectly concise for the information provided.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter and no output schema. Description covers what it returns (events with source) and gives examples, which is adequate for basic understanding. However, lacks context about event source format, limits, or usage notes that could enhance completeness.

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?

Only one parameter (documentId) with schema coverage 100%. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's 'Form documentId.' Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as schema already fully describes the parameter.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Return', resource 'form's customisation events', and provides specific examples (displayFields, validateForm, enableFields). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluig_form_list or fluig_form_full which handle different aspects of 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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., form must exist), or cases where another tool would be more appropriate. Agent has to infer usage from name and description alone.

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