ff get form

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

Annotations cover readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that it may include private integration/settings data and states a permission requirement, which is useful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not detail auth mechanics further or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope. No wasted words, though the permission note could be phrased more tightly.

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 read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, sensitive data possibility, and permission requirement. It lacks guidance on return structure (which is fine without output schema) and explicit alternatives, leaving a small gap.

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 50%; the 'account' parameter has a schema description but 'form_id' only has constraints. The description does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides for either parameter. Baseline 3 when schema partially covers parameters.

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 (Read) and resource (one native form with formMeta), which is clearer than the name alone. It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like ff_list_forms or ff_form_fields, though 'Read one' implies singular retrieval. Good but lacking sibling differentiation.

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?

Adds a permission prerequisite ('Requires fluentform_forms_manager for the selected form'), which implies context. However, it gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like ff_list_forms or ff_form_fields. Usage is only loosely implied.

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