Get forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe-read nature is well covered. The description adds only the endpoint and 'Body fields: none,' which is minimal technical context and does not disclose list-scoping caveats beyond what the schema already provides.

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: action, endpoint, body note, and reference link appear in three short segments with no filler. It is slightly redundant with the title ('Get forms'), but the endpoint and reference add useful technical specificity.

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 simple optional-query GET with rich annotations and a well-documented schema, the endpoint and reference are enough to make the call. However, the description lacks an explicit statement of the returned collection's scope and does not point to plan-scoped or subscription-form alternatives, leaving some inference to the agent.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting the query object, supported parameter names, comma-joining behavior, and explicit offset/limit pagination. The description itself contributes no additional parameter detail, but the high schema coverage justifies the baseline score of 3.

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 the action ("Get forms") and the precise REST endpoint (GET /api/xm/1/forms), making the resource and HTTP method unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like xmatters_get_forms_in_a_plan, but the top-level endpoint is a strong scoping signal.

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 about when to use this tool versus related siblings such as xmatters_get_forms_in_a_plan or xmatters_get_subscription_forms. The description only restates the resource and endpoint and offers no exclusions, preconditions, or alternative routing.

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