reach_listFormsV1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It correctly communicates a read-only, paginated list operation and adds the helpful context about the template URL and tags. However, it doesn't disclose default pagination behavior (e.g., default page size, max page size) or provide any details about the response structure, which is important for a generated list.

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 sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence is a front-loaded summary of the operation, and the second effectively adds the key behavioral context. Highly scannable and efficient.

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 paginated list tool with 100% schema coverage, this is mostly sufficient to call the endpoint. The main gaps are missing context around pagination (defaults, maximums) and the exact shape of the items in the list. However, the description's hint about template URLs and tags helps an agent select this tool to understand campaign structure.

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 schema descriptions are adequate. The description's note that the forms carry a reference to a template URL and tags provides additional context for the return value but adds no meaning to the `profileUuid`, `page`, or `per_page` parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Get') with a precise resource ('paginated list of the signup forms in a profile'), distinguishing it from the sibling `reach_getFormDetailsV1` (singular) and `reach_listProfilesV1`. It clearly identifies the resource scope.

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 implies when to use it (to get forms), but it gives no explicit guidance for when to prefer this over the *other* form-related tools (e.g., `reach_getFormDetailsV1`, `reach_deleteFormV1`). No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.

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