Get a form in a plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the HTTP method and 'Body fields: none', but does not describe response contents, error cases, or other operational behavior. No contradiction with annotations.

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 extremely compact: a clear verb/resource clause, the endpoint, a note that the body is empty, and a reference link. Every element earns its place, and there is no repetition of information already present in the schema or annotations.

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 no output schema, the description does not state what a successful response contains, and it gives no guidance on plan context or failure modes. The reference link and schema-side query documentation compensate partially, making this adequate but not complete for an agent that must interpret the result.

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 documents the query parameters (recipients, embed, offset, limit), comma-joining of arrays, and explicit pagination behavior, covering much of the optional surface. The description itself adds little beyond embedding {formId} in the endpoint; formId is not semantically explained, though its meaning is reasonably inferable from the name.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get a form in a plan') and pins it to the exact endpoint GET /api/xm/1/forms/{formId}. It clearly identifies a single-item retrieval, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling list tools such as xmatters_get_forms_in_a_plan.

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 singular 'a form' and the {formId} path parameter imply use when you have a specific form ID and need one form, but the description provides no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives guidance. It neither states exclusions nor names sibling tools that should be used instead.

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