list_forms

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose two key behaviors: status filtering and pagination. However, it does not explain defaults, ordering, whether all forms are returned regardless of user permissions, what the response shape is, or how pagination results should be traversed.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences earn their place, though the second sentence is telegraphic. It is concise without being wasteful, but could use slightly more explanatory structure.

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 list operation with three optional parameters and no nested objects, the description is minimally adequate. It covers scope, filtering, and pagination, but lacks details about pagination defaults, ordering, and what the returned list contains. Without an output schema, a bit more context about the response would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, but the description partially compensates by indicating that status is used for filtering and that skip/limit relate to pagination. It does not elaborate on the semantics of skip, limit, or what happens when status is omitted, but the parameter names and enum values are reasonably self-explanatory.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'List the forms in the workspace.' It also distinguishes this from siblings like get_form (single form) and list_form_submissions (submissions, not forms) by explicitly scoping to forms and mentioning status filtering and pagination.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related alternatives, such as get_form, list_form_submissions, or create_form. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions stated. The usage context is only implied by the name and description.

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