fluig_form_full

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

With no annotations, the description fully communicates that this is a read-only operation ('Read a whole form'). It does not mention performance implications or any potential side effects, but the lack of contradictory annotations and clear read intention justifies a 4.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that immediately convey the purpose and usage context. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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?

While there is no output schema, the description explicitly states the return contents (metadata, files, events), which is sufficient for a read operation. It does not specify pagination or limits, but for a comprehensive read of a form, the description is largely complete.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description does not add extra meaning or context about the parameters beyond what is in the schema, earning the baseline score.

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 verb 'Read', the resource 'a whole form', and specifies what is included: metadata, every file, and every event. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like fluig_form_events or fluig_form_files that handle specific subsets.

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 instruction 'Do this before editing or publishing' provides clear context for when to use the tool. It implies that more targeted tools exist for specific parts, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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