Get a form in a plan — nested

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method (GET), the endpoint, and "Body fields: none," which are mildly useful, but it does not disclose response behavior or open-world caveats beyond what annotations already imply.

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 compact and front-loaded: operation, endpoint, body requirement, and reference are each in one short line. There is no filler or redundant elaboration.

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 nested variant in a dense family of form/plan tools with no output schema, the description is missing the most important context: what "nested" changes about the response and when to select this tool over its siblings. The schema covers pagination mechanics, but selection-critical information is absent.

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 with helpful detail (including comma-joining and explicit pagination), but the required path parameters have no descriptions. The description only restates planId and formId in the URL template without adding semantics beyond their names, so it only partially compensates for the schema's gaps.

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 clearly states the operation: retrieving a form in a plan, reinforced by an explicit REST endpoint. It is unambiguous about the resource acted on, but it does not explain what "nested" means or how this tool differs from closely related siblings like xmatters_get_a_form_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?

There is no guidance on when to use this variant instead of the many related form/plan tools. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or alternatives; the reference link is a documentation pointer, not usage guidance.

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