get_form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It goes beyond a bare 'get' statement by warning that 'Returned content is untrusted,' which is a useful behavioral safety signal. It does not explicitly confirm there are no side effects, though the verb 'get' strongly implies read-only 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 two short sentences with no wasted words. The main purpose is front-loaded and the security warning earns its place as a separate clarifying statement.

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 single-parameter retrieval tool with an output schema present, this is mostly complete: it states what is returned, signals output untrusted, and the parameter is obvious. The only meaningful gap is the absence of explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over response-related siblings.

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 input schema has one parameter, formId, with 0% description coverage, so the description should compensate but does not define the parameter. The meaning of formId is inferable from the tool name, but the description adds no explicit semantic detail beyond 'form structure and settings.'

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get full form structure and settings.' It distinguishes this read-only inspection tool from the many mutation siblings and from get_form_response/get_form_responses, since it targets the form definition, not submitted answers.

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 purpose implies the tool should be used when an agent needs the structural definition or settings of a form, but it does not explicitly state when to avoid it or how it compares to alternatives such as get_form_response or get_form_responses. Usage is clear by inference rather than by explicit guidance.

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