Get Forms operation

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), but the description adds real behavioral detail: the exact return shape {id, status, message} and the four terminal/transient status values. The only gap is polling cadence/rate-limit guidance, which an agent would still have to guess.

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?

Three tight sentences: purpose first, return contract second, input provenance and loop condition third. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (this is a polling tool) is 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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by enumerating the return fields and status values, and it supplies the input's origin. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the call is missing, aside from optional polling-interval advice.

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% and the parameter description already states it is an operation id. The prose goes further by explaining provenance ('from the id an async trigger returned') and giving concrete sources, which adds meaning beyond the schema.

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+resource (get the status of a long-running Forms operation) and immediately frames the use case (poll an async export). An agent can distinguish it from write-side siblings like forms_answers_export without opening either schema.

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 says when to use it ('poll this to watch an async export finish'), names the alternative that produces the input (answers_export / 'ycli forms answers export --no-wait'), and states the stopping condition ('re-call until status is ok or fail').

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