forms_get

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds that the returned data concerns questions and settings, but it does not disclose any further behavior such as authentication requirements, invalid-formId handling, or response structure. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 very short, front-loaded and contains no filler words, which serves conciseness well. However, the brevity comes at the cost of an explicit verb and operational context, so it is efficient but slightly under-specified.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool, the description conveys the key return scope -- questions and settings -- and annotations cover the safety profile. But with no output schema, the description is the only return-value documentation, and it does not connect the tool to forms_responses or explain how formId should be obtained. This is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description needed to compensate for the undocumented formId parameter, but it never mentions formId directly. The name is self-explanatory enough to suggest which form to fetch, and the phrase 'a form's' hints at that meaning, but that is minimal compensation for the lack of schema documentation.

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 names the resource ('a form's questions and settings') and implies a read operation, which partially distinguishes it from sibling forms_responses. However, it is a noun phrase with no explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve,' leaving the action somewhat vague.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus forms_responses or other read tools. The phrase 'questions and settings' weakly suggests form structure rather than responses, but no alternative tool is named and no when/when-not conditions are stated.

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