get-form-schema

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool's purpose and usage context but lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. For a read operation with no annotations, this is a moderate gap.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core function and includes necessary context, making it highly concise and effective.

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 tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers purpose and usage. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like response format or error conditions, which would be helpful for an agent. It's complete enough for basic use but has room for improvement.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'formId' clearly documented. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as where to obtain the formId or format examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

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 specific action ('Get the schema') and the precise resource ('for the fields property when requesting a human review with a form'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'request-human-review-with-form' by indicating it provides the schema needed for that operation, not performing the review itself.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool: 'to use for the fields property when requesting a human review with a form.' It clearly positions this as a prerequisite step for the sibling tool 'request-human-review-with-form,' providing clear context and distinguishing it from the other sibling 'list-forms.'

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