forms_responses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the minimal behavioral trait that all responses for a form are included, suggesting a collection-level read. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't disclose return shape, pagination, or other runtime behavior.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler or repeated schema information. It is concise, though it sacrifices clarity by omitting a verb, making it less effective than a similarly short imperative sentence.

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?

With no output schema and minimal parameter documentation, the description should provide more context about what constitutes a response, how responses are returned, or how formId is resolved. The tool is simple, but the description still leaves the agent with too much inference about the actual behavior and return payload.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the undocumented formId parameter. It only weakly implies that formId identifies the form whose responses are returned; it doesn't explain the expected format, where to obtain the ID, or the required nature of the parameter. This is insufficient compensation for a completely undocumented schema.

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 identifies the resource clearly as form responses, and 'Every' hints that this operation returns all responses for a form. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', and it does not differentiate itself from siblings such as forms_get or tasks_lists. It is not a tautology, but the intended action must be inferred.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication that formId should come from forms_get or another source. The description gives no context for choosing this tool over related read operations in the sibling list.

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