Get forms in a plan

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method and endpoint context, but does not disclose what the returned list looks like or how pagination behaves; those details live only in the query schema, not the tool description.

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: it opens with the action, then provides the endpoint, body requirement, and reference link. The first sentence restates the title without adding new information, but the remaining content is efficient and earns its place.

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 read-only list operation, the description is reasonably complete: it gives the endpoint, indicates no request body, and links to official documentation. The input schema covers the required planId and query parameters, and annotations cover safety, so the main missing piece is more explicit return-value or response-format context.

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 description adds minimal parameter meaning beyond showing planId in the URL path. The query parameter documentation is actually carried by the input schema's query property, which names embed, enabledFor, sortBy, sortOrder, triggerType, offset, and limit, so the schema is doing most of the parameter-semantics work.

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 forms in a plan') and provides the exact REST endpoint, so an agent knows it is listing forms scoped to a specific plan. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from closely related siblings like xmatters_get_forms or xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan, but the endpoint makes the resource and scope unambiguous.

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 guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as xmatters_get_forms or xmatters_get_a_form_in_a_plan. It only states the endpoint and that there are no body fields, which is useful but does not convey usage context or exclusions.

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