Webform Get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about permissions, behavior when the ID does not exist, or that reads are non-mutating. With an output schema present, return-shape explanation is not required, but the total absence of behavioral context for an unannotated tool is a real gap.

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 zero filler, which is good structure. It loses a point only because brevity here shades into under-specification rather than efficient density.

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 annotations, a 0%-documented schema, and one unexplained parameter ('include'), the description is not complete enough for a reliable call. The existing output schema excuses it from describing return values, but not from covering the input contract.

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, but it only implies the meaning of webform_id via 'by ID'. The second parameter, 'include', is neither explained in the schema nor mentioned in the description, leaving its purpose and accepted values entirely opaque.

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 (Get) and resource (a single webform) plus the identifier used to retrieve it (by ID), which implicitly contrasts with webform_list. It does not name or differentiate from any sibling explicitly, so it stays below 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 webform_list, webform_update, or webform_submission_get, and no preconditions are stated. The agent must infer that 'single' means this is the fetch-one counterpart to the list tool.

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