List Forms integrations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the enumeration of integration types (email, tracker, wiki, jsonrpc, http, function), which is real context about the returned data, but it says nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned and followed by the sibling cross-reference. The opening sentence is a fragment, but nothing is wasted.

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 read-only two-parameter list tool this is nearly sufficient: it identifies the resource, the item shape (type tags), the type vocabulary, and the sibling alternative. With no output schema, it could say more about item fields beyond type, but the essential calling information is present.

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%: both hook_id ('Integration group id from hooks_list') and survey_id ('Form id from surveys_list') are already documented. The description only corroborates that 'hook' means integration group, adding no syntax or constraint 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?

The description defines the resource precisely (every integration belonging to an integration group/hook) and names the sibling relation to hooks_list. The verb 'list' is only implied by the enumeration phrasing, but an agent can still tell it apart from forms_hooks_list and forms_subscriptions_get.

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?

It notes that hooks_list returns the same integrations nested inside each hook, which implies the alternative exists, but it never states when to call this tool instead. No prerequisites, exclusions, or explicit selection criteria are given.

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