h3yun_list_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List form nodes' and does not disclose the return shape, pagination, authentication requirements, or the default filtering behavior (forms_only defaults to true, keeping only 200/210 nodes). The forms_only parameter description adds partial behavioral context, but the tool description itself offers almost no behavior beyond the operation name.

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 eight-word sentence with the verb front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though it borders on under-specification — the same brevity that helps clarity is also the reason behavioral detail is missing.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values do not need to be explained in the description, and the two parameters are fully covered by schema descriptions. However, with no annotations, the description fails to mention that auth is likely required (h3yun_login exists as a sibling), does not diffeerentiate from search_forms, and relies on the parameter description for the sequencing hint. Adequate for a simple 2-param list tool, but with noticeable gaps.

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 schema already documents both parameters adequately (app_code's source and forms_only's filtering semantics). The tool description adds only marginal value by contextualizing app_code as scoping to 'one application' and tying 'form nodes' to the forms_only filter. This meets the baseline for high coverage but adds little beyond it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource ('List form nodes') and adds a scope ('under one application'), which distinguishes it from the sibling h3yun_list_apps (which lists applications, not nodes). It also reads differently from h3yun_search_forms ('list' vs 'search'). However, it is terse and does not clarify what a 'form node' is, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Usage context is imposed: the required app_code parameter is described as coming 'from h3yun_list_apps', which implies a sequencing step, and 'under one application' implies the caller must already have an app_code in hand. But there is no explicit when-to-use versus the sibling h3yun_search_forms, no prerequisites (e.g., h3yun_login), and no exclusion conditions. The guidance is implied rather than stated.

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