get_form

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves information (implying read-only) and mentions the return content ('Complete form definition including field specifications'), which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose potential behavioral traits like error conditions, authentication needs, or rate limits that would be helpful for a read operation.

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 perfectly structured and concise: a clear purpose statement followed by usage guidance and return information. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and return content. However, for a tool with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral transparency about potential constraints or error cases.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage for the single parameter 'form_id', the description adds no specific parameter information. However, since there's only one parameter and its purpose is implied by the tool name and description context, the baseline is 4. The description doesn't compensate for the schema gap but doesn't need to heavily for a single, obvious parameter.

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 specific action ('Retrieves detailed information') and resource ('about a specific form template'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_forms' (plural) and 'create_form'. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance: 'Examine form structure before creating documents or new forms'. This tells the agent when to use this tool (for pre-creation examination) and implies alternatives like 'create_document_from_form' or 'create_form' for actual creation tasks.

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