Ver formulário

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: raw=true includes the complete API JSON and produces much larger output ('saída bem maior; só quando o resumo não bastar'), adding context beyond the schema. It also clarifies the output structure (general data + item list), which is useful.

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 a single sentence, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and includes necessary details about raw and sibling-tool usage without any wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 simple read tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential parts: what it returns (structure, items, positions) and the raw option. It also connects to sibling tools. It could explicitly state it's a read-only operation, but the verb 'Mostra' implies it.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some context linking the output positions to sibling tools, but it doesn't add significant meaning about the parameters themselves beyond what the schema already states. The raw parameter is already well described in 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Mostra a estrutura de um formulário: dados gerais e a lista de itens com as posições' (shows the form structure: general data and item list with positions). It uses a specific verb ('Mostra' / shows) and a resource ('formulário'), and differentiates from siblings by mentioning its output is used in add_question, delete_question, and move_question.

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 description provides context by saying the positions are to be used in sibling mutation tools (add_question, delete_question, move_question), implying when to use this tool. It also explains the optional raw=true for full JSON, but it doesn't explicitly exclude alternative tools like list_responses for response data.

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