list_forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paginated, with no note on ordering, total counts, or error conditions, so it adds modest value beyond structured data.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the scope and behavior stated up front and zero wasted words. Well sized for a simple read tool.

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 trivial read-only listing tool this is close to adequate, and annotations cover safety. However, with no output schema and no description of what each returned form entry contains or how pagination terminates, an agent still lacks return-value 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?

Schema coverage is 0% — neither the 'limit' nor 'offset' parameter has a description. The phrase 'with pagination' merely hints that limit/offset control paging without defining defaults (100/0), maximums, or behavior at the end of the list, so the gap is largely uncompensated.

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 XML files') plus the scope ('within the configured Forms root'). It implicitly distinguishes the resource (forms) from the sibling list_components, but never explicitly contrasts the two, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this versus siblings like analyze_form, list_components, or get_source, and no prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.

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