form_state

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only query, but it does not disclose whether the tool fails when no form is active, what 'availability' means, or whether session_id affects which form is inspected. The lack of any behavioral caveats or effect description leaves the agent guessing about side effects and error conditions.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the main action and resource. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices important detail; still, for what it includes, it is efficiently structured.

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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned state looks like, but it only names three abstract concepts (availability, modified, readonly). It also omits usage context, parameter rationale, and error behavior. An agent has just enough to guess the tool's purpose but not enough to use it confidently in a real workflow.

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 0% and the description does not mention session_id at all. While the parameter name and default ('default-18') hint at its purpose, the description adds no meaning. An agent cannot tell whether session_id is required, how it maps to a form, or why a default is provided. The description fails to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 ('Return') and identifies a distinct resource ('active form availability/modified/readonly state'). It makes clear the tool is a state query for the currently active formaine, which separates it conceptually from other form-related siblings like wait_form or close_form. However, the phrase 'availability/modified/readonly' is compressed and not fully unpacked, leaving some ambiguity about what exactly is returned.

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 indication of when to call this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't state prerequisites like an active form, nor does it mention that it's a read-only check to be used before interacting with a form. There are many form-related siblings, but no guidance is offered to route an agent to this one.

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