List Form Sets

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive profile, so the description's contribution is the default result set and the conditional gating on Problem Management being enabled — a genuine behavioral trait an agent could not infer from annotations. It does not cover pagination or result volume, but the core disclosure is solid.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and the default scope. The second and third sentences largely duplicate the filter_resource_type schema description, which is mild redundancy but not bloat.

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, so return values needn't be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, with ten parameters at 10% schema coverage, an agent gets no explanation of paging, includes, or date-range filtering, leaving the definition only minimally viable for a resource this configurable.

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 10%: only filter_resource_type is documented, and the description merely restates that one parameter (using `filter[resource_type]` notation that differs from the schema property name `filter_resource_type`). The other nine parameters — include, page_size, page_number, filter_slug, filter_is_default, and four created_at bounds — get no explanation anywhere, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("List form_sets") and immediately defines the scope of what comes back. It does not distinguish itself from the sibling get_form_set or from create_form_set, but the list semantics are 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?

It explains the default behavior and gives one explicit narrowing pattern ("Pass filter[resource_type]=incident to list only incident form sets"), which implies when to reach for that parameter. It offers no guidance on when to use this tool rather than get_form_set or create_form_set, so usage is only implied.

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