get_form_elements

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that the corresponding write is a full-list replacement, which is the key behavioral trait driving the read-modify-write pattern. It says nothing about ordering guarantees or size limits, but the output schema covers the return shape.

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 short sentences: what it returns first, then when and why. Nothing is wasted, and the workflow constraint is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

With a single well-documented parameter, an output schema covering the return value, and readOnlyHint covering the safety profile, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: the element taxonomy and the destructive-replace context needed to use the result correctly.

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?

Only one parameter (form_id) and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents it as 'The form's numeric ID.' The description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance for the ID, so baseline 3 is the right call.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the form's elements') and enumerates exactly what those elements are: questions, headings, images, page breaks. That enumeration scopes it well against adjacent readers like get_form_definition or get_form_info, though it never names a sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

'Use this before any element edit' gives an explicit trigger condition tied to the edit workflow, and it explains why the read is needed (the write endpoint replaces the whole list). It does not name replace_form_elements/update_form_element as the alternatives or state when this tool is unnecessary, so a small inference gap remains.

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