List Form Field Options

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — no note about pagination behavior despite page_size/page_number being exposed, no mention of what the `include` parameter unlocks, and no hint about result volume or filtering scope.

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 trivially short rather than efficiently concise — it is under-specified, not front-loaded with useful information. Every sentence should earn its place, and this one simply echoes the name.

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?

An output schema exists, which relieves the description of explaining return values, but a 6-parameter tool with 17% schema coverage and only one required-parameter hint needs far more. Five undocumented parameters and no scoping/filtering explanation leave the agent guessing how to call it correctly.

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 only 17% (only form_field_id is documented in the schema), so the description is obligated to compensate. It does not: include, page_size, page_number, filter_color, and filter_value are completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.

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 is a tautological restatement of the tool name and title: 'List form_field_options'. It gives no indication of scope (e.g., that options are scoped to a required form_field_id) nor any differentiation from siblings such as get_form_field_option, create_form_field_option, or update_form_field_option.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like the singular get_form_field_option. The presence of a required form_field_id in the schema is the only hint that this tool is scoped to one field, and the agent must infer it from the schema rather than the description.

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