list_forms

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It gives useful context: the tool returns form titles, authors, and dates rather than full content ('Use get_post with the feed_id to see the full form content'), and it notes these forms 'may require parent signatures' — a behavioral trait an agent benefits from knowing. It does not mention side effects, but the description strongly implies a read-only listing operation.

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 three sentences plus an Args block. Every sentence earns its place: it states the action, the output fields, the nature of the forms, and a pointer to the full-content tool. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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 single-parameter list tool with an existing output schema, this description is complete. It explains what the tool returns, the type of forms covered, and the next step for full content. The one omission is that it doesn't explicitly mention what the absence of a school_id entails, but the schema marks it required, and the purpose is evident from the text.

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 has zero description coverage, so the description must compensate. The only parameter, school_id, is addressed with 'school_id: School ID' in the Args section. This adds little beyond the schema's type and name, but the surrounding 'for a school' phrasing gives some context. It does not explain how to obtain the ID or validate it, so it adds only minimal value for a single obvious parameter.

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-plus-resource construction: 'List available forms and permission slips for a school.' It also clarifies the result covers titles, authors, and dates, and gives concrete examples of form types (field trip permission, driver forms). This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like list_links or list_signups.

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 by stating it lists forms and permission slips, and it suggests a follow-up ('Use get_post with the feed_id to see the full form content'). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or contrast it with sibling list tools (e.g., list_signups, list_notices). The guidance is present but only implicit.

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