ghl_form_list

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and nondestructive. The description adds endpoint details, OAuth scopes, and pagination info, which are useful beyond annotations. However, it fails to disclose what data is returned or any side effects (though none expected).

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 brief and to the point, with no fluff. However, it could be better structured: the title is redundant with the first line, and the pagination info could be more clearly integrated.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what the response contains (e.g., list of form objects, fields included). It only provides pagination hints but omits return structure, sorting, filtering, or pagination behavior details, making it incomplete for an AI agent.

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 low (25%: only limit has a description). The description lists pagination params (skip, limit) but does not explain 'type' or 'locationId' beyond being required. It adds minimal meaning beyond the schema for 3 out of 4 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?

The description clearly states 'Get Forms' and provides the HTTP method and endpoint. The tool name and title align, making the purpose obvious. However, it does not differentiate from sibling form-related tools like ghl_form_get_submissions or ghl_ad_fb_conversation_form_list.

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 mentions pagination parameters (skip, limit) and OAuth scopes, implying usage for listing forms. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use ghl_form_get_submissions instead).

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