forms_read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only operation with no side effects and specifies exactly what is read. It does not mention auth or response inclusion, but the read-only nature is self-evident and an output schema is available.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. It earns its place by clearly listing the object parts being read.

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 operation with one required parameter and an output schema, the description is complete. It does not need to explain return values because the output schema covers that, and it adequately distinguishes from response-related sibling tools.

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 schema has one parameter, form_id, with no description and 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain the parameter, but 'form_id' is self-explanatory from the tool name and schema title. The description adds no extra semantic detail, though the parameter is minimal and obvious.

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 uses a specific verb 'Read' with the resource 'form' and details the scope via 'structure, questions, and settings'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like forms_list_responses or forms_update_settings, which have different purposes.

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 implies when to use the tool: when you need a form's structure, questions, or settings. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to choose this over mutation-focused siblings.

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