fluig_form_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a real gotcha — the field is `field` in SOAP but `fieldId` in REST v2 — and implies read-only behavior via getFormFields, but says nothing about authentication, whether it works per document or per form, or how many fields come back.

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?

Two compact sentences plus a warning, front-loaded with what the tool returns and why it matters. No filler.

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 2-parameter lookup with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose, preconditions, and a call-site naming caveat. The only gap is what the returned structure looks like, which matters slightly more here since no output schema exists.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the env parameter is documented in depth in the schema itself (teste vs prod, no default). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: retrieve the VALID field names of a form via SOAP getFormFields. The agent can tell it is a metadata-lookup tool, distinct from card-writing siblings like fluig_card_save or fluig_form_save, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

"Pré-requisito de qualquer escrita em card: sem isto, gravar campo é adivinhar nome" gives a clear condition that selects this tool over writing directly. It does not state when the tool is unnecessary (e.g. reading-only flows) or name an alternative lookup path.

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