Get form response options — alias

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds 'Body fields: none' and the endpoint, which is mildly useful but does not disclose any additional behavior beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction exists.

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 concise, with the core operation front-loaded. The endpoint and reference are directly useful. However, the word 'alias' appears twice without added value, and the sentence fragment structure is slightly awkward but not wasteful.

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 the low complexity and strong annotations (read-only, idempotent), the description covers the basics. However, the critical missing piece is the meaning of 'alias' and its relationship to the sibling tool 'xmatters_get_form_response_options'—an agent would not know whether these are interchangeable. No output schema exists, but that is acceptable for a simple GET.

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 description coverage is 50%: the 'query' parameter is described in the schema but 'path.formId' is not. The tool description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever—it only mentions body fields. Since coverage is not high, the description should compensate, but it entirely fails to do so.

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: 'Get form response options' with a specific HTTP endpoint, so the verb and resource are clear. However, the addition of 'alias' is vague—it doesn't explain what it is an alias of, and it doesn't differentiate this tool from the sibling 'xmatters_get_form_response_options'. Thus it is clear but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is an alias for another tool, nor does it give any context about scenarios where this should be preferred. The only hint is 'Body fields: none', which is not usage guidance.

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