uof_custom_get_form_structure_by_id

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

Without annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: it returns field structure with types, filling guidance, and start order hints. It also warns that returned fields are intermediate and may be incomplete. This is thorough, though minor details about error scenarios are absent.

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?

Extremely concise: three sentences plus a note, each adding unique value. Front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance and a behavioral note. No redundant information.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient summary of return values. It covers usage timing, comparative advantage over a sibling, and a critical limitation (intermediate fields). The single parameter is well-contextualized.

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 description for 'form_id' stating it comes from get_form_list. The description adds value by reiterating this source context and emphasizing its origin, exceeding the baseline for high coverage.

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 tool retrieves field structure by form ID, including types, filling methods, and start order hints. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling 'get_form_structure' by noting it returns additional field type and guidance information.

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?

Explicitly advises to use before starting a form to check fields and filling methods. Recommends this tool over 'get_form_structure' for richer output. Also includes a caveat about the returned fields being intermediate and potentially fewer than the full form, providing important usage context.

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