FoxForm

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses write-key requirements, draft creation, strict unknown-field rejection, cross-validation of branching rules, and legacy conditionalNavigation migration. None of this contradicts the annotations, and it gives the agent important behavioral expectations.

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 opening is front-loaded and the organization is clear (Args, Returns, conditional logic). It is long, but the conditional-logic complexity justifies most of the length; a small amount of redundancy around unknown-field rejection keeps it from a 5.

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 create tool with no output schema and a complex nested questions payload, the description is complete: it covers return shape, draft/publish flow, validation behavior, logic syntax, operators, score variables, and legacy migration. An agent has enough to construct a valid request.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 80%, the description adds substantial meaning: theme enum values with a default, the screen object shape, and a full conditional-logic syntax with operators, expression forms, and examples. The schema only says questions are screen objects, so this detail is valuable.

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 opens with 'Create a new form' and specifies the distinguishing capability: per-screen conditional logic. This clearly separates it from foxform_update_form, foxform_publish_form, and the read/list siblings.

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?

It states a WRITE-scoped API key is required and notes that the created form starts as a draft, directing the agent to call foxform_publish_form to make it live. It does not explicitly contrast with foxform_update_form, but 'new form' plus sibling names make the selection clear.

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

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

The annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: truncation of large exports, the CSV format, and the row/column structure of the returned text, which the annotations do not convey.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose and the important truncation caveat. The only minor redundancy is the Args block echoing what the schema already documents, but it does not meaningfully hurt readability.

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 single-parameter read-only export with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what is returned, the format, the high-level structure, and the truncation behavior with a fallback alternative. No critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 100%, with form_id fully described as a required string in the input schema. The description merely repeats 'form_id (string)' in the Args section and does not add new semantic meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 explicitly states the action: export all responses for a form as CSV text, and clarifies the output shape (one row per response, columns = questions). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like foxform_list_responses by framing the result as a single CSV export.

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?

It explicitly names the alternative tool and the condition for choosing it: 'Large exports are truncated — use foxform_list_responses with pagination for very large datasets.' This tells the agent when not to use this tool and what to use instead.

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

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: public_url is only live when status is 'published', URLs must not be hand-built, markdown summarizes logic while json exposes exact stored objects, unknown fields are rejected, and legacy conditionalNavigation is migrated on load. These details meaningfully affect how an agent should interpret and use the result.

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 long but meticulously structured: a one-sentence summary, Args, Returns, then clearly labeled conditional-logic detail. Every section earns its place because the returned object is complex and the logic semantics are non-obvious. The most important operational caveats (public_url, response_format, unknown-field rejection) are front-loaded before the deep-dive.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining the return shape. It does so thoroughly: the top-level form object fields, public_url behavior, questions[] structure, logic object shapes, operators, expression semantics, score mechanics, and legacy fields. An agent can call this tool and correctly consume nearly any response without additional documentation.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches both parameters. It tells the agent that form_id comes from foxform_list_forms, and it explains the practical difference between response_format values: markdown summarizes every rule, while json returns exact stored objects matching what foxform_update_form expects. This goes beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch a single form by ID, including its full question list, per-screen conditional logic and settings.' This clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like foxform_list_forms and foxform_get_form_analytics. It also names the source of form_id (foxform_list_forms), reinforcing the tool's exact role.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to retrieve a single full form by ID, and it points users to foxform_list_forms for obtaining valid IDs. It also explains when to choose 'markdown' vs 'json', noting that json returns the exact stored shape that foxform_update_form expects. It does not explicitly state when-not-to-use it relative to analytics or export tools, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful beyond-annotations context: form_views and response_rate are null until views are tracked (forward-only), and optional fields response_time_distribution and views_timeline are disclosed. No contradiction.

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 opens with a substantive purpose sentence, then provides a compact return shape and a useful edge-case note. The Args block is somewhat redundant with the schema but is short and scannable, so it does not significantly hurt structure.

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 analytics tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description gives the return shape and an important data-scarcity edge case. It could clarify what per-question stats contain or timeline granularity, but nothing essential is missing.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters and a default for response_format. The description's Args block only restates form_id and response_format without adding extra meaning, so the schema carries the semantic burden.

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 ('form analytics'), and enumerates the exact content: overview KPIs, responses-over-time timeline, and per-question stats. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like foxform_get_form or foxform_list_responses.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or alternative routing is provided. The word 'Aggregated' and the KPI list imply use when summary analytics are needed rather than raw responses, but an agent is not told to prefer this over foxform_export_responses or foxform_list_responses in any scenario.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail by listing the returned full response object fields and the markdown/json format choice, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a brief Args/Returns structure. The Args list largely duplicates schema content, but it is short and does not detract much from readability.

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-response fetch tool, the description covers the source of the ID, supported output formats, and the return object shape, which compensates for the lack of an output schema. It omits error behavior for missing IDs, but annotations and the tool's simplicity lower the burden.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the two parameters and format options but does not materially add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, except for noting the response_id comes from foxform_list_responses.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one response by its ID (from foxform_list_responses).' It clearly identifies the tool as a single-item fetch operation and differentiates it from list/export tools by emphasizing exactly one response is returned.

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 phrase 'from foxform_list_responses' gives clear context that a response_id should come from that sibling tool, and the focus on 'one response' implies this is for targeted retrieval rather than bulk listing or export. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable operational detail: forms return newest first, public_url must be used exactly as provided, and public_url is only live when status is 'published'. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 well structured, with the core behavior first, followed by parameters, return shape, and a crucial URL caveat. Some repetition of schema details exists, but every section serves a purpose and no content is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the inline Returns block is essential and fully provided. The description also covers the non-obvious public_url domain caveat, the published-status dependency, and the recommended follow-up tools, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already fully documents page, limit, and response_format. The description mostly repeats these details and adds no significant semantic information beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists forms owned by the authenticated account, sorted newest first, which is a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from form creation, response listing, and analytics tools by framing it as the discovery entry point for form IDs.

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 gives explicit workflow guidance: use this first to discover form IDs, then call foxform_get_form or foxform_get_form_analytics. It does not exhaustively enumerate when not to use it versus list_responses, but the stated workflow is clear enough for correct tool selection.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds behavioral details beyond annotations: 'newest first' ordering, return structure ({ total, page, limit, count, responses: [...] }), and pagination semantics. This is meaningful additional transparency without repeating annotation content.

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence purpose, a clear args block, a returns line, and a routing note. Every sentence adds value—no fluff or redundancy. The most critical scoping (newest first, alternatives) is front-loaded.

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 paginated list tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: parameter meanings, default/constraint values, return shape, ordering, and alternatives. Combined with comprehensive annotations, nothing is missing for correct invocation.

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% (only form_id and response_format have descriptions). The description fully compensates by explaining all four parameters: form_id (the form's ID), page (1-based, default 1), limit (page size 1-100, default 20), and response_format ('markdown'|'json'). It adds clarity beyond the schema, especially for page and limit which lack schema descriptions.

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 states a specific action ('List submitted responses'), a clear resource ('for a form'), and an ordering ('newest first'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like foxform_get_response (single response), foxform_export_responses (full dump), and foxform_get_form_analytics (aggregate metrics) without ambiguity.

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?

Explicitly names alternatives and when to use them: 'For aggregate metrics use foxform_get_form_analytics; for a full dump use foxform_export_responses.' This provides direct guidance on when not to use this tool, leaving nothing to inference.

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

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

Annotations already indicate idempotentHint and destructiveHint absent, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: the WRITE-scoped key requirement, the specific public_url usage rule (do not construct yourself), and the possibility of a plan-limit failure. These go beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 compact yet complete, front-loading the purpose and then providing necessary constraints (auth, URL usage, failure mode) in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition.

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 action with annotations present, the description covers all essential information: prerequisites, return shape, URL handling, and a known failure case. An agent has everything needed to call the tool correctly without further clarification.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with a description for form_id, so the description does not need to elaborate. It simply restates the parameter name and type, adding no extra meaning beyond what the schema supplies. The baseline of 3 applies because schema coverage is high.

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 the verb 'publish' and the resource 'form', along with the effect: making it live at a public URL and accepting responses. It is distinct from sibling tools like unpublish by its action, but it does not explicitly name alternatives, so it stops short of 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?

The only guidance is the prerequisite 'Requires a WRITE-scoped API key', which is a condition, not a when-to-use instruction. It does not say when to prefer this over other tools (e.g., for a draft form), nor does it mention when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are provided.

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

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds complementary context by stating the concrete behavior (takes the form offline, stops responses), the auth requirement, and the return value (confirmation message). It does not contradict any annotation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the verb and immediate effect appear first, followed by the auth requirement and a brief args/returns structure. There is no filler, and every sentence contributes operational knowledge.

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 single-parameter toggle operation, the description plus annotations cover the action, effect, auth, safety profile, and return type. It does not describe the exact confirmation message format or mention the relationship to foxform_publish_form, but those are minor gaps for this simple tool.

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 fully documents the only parameter with a description ('Form ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'form_id (string)' without adding meaning beyond the schema, such as accepted formats, lifecycle requirements, or error cases.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource—'Unpublish a form'—and immediately clarifies the meaning with 'takes it offline; stops accepting responses.' This clearly distinguishes it from read-only siblings and the opposite action foxform_publish_form without needing to inspect the schema.

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 itself implies when to use the tool: when a form should stop accepting responses. It also adds a practical prerequisite by requiring a WRITE-scoped API key. However, it never explicitly names alternatives, says 'use this instead of X,' or explains when not to use it—leaving the routing to inference.

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

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

This is exceptionally transparent beyond the annotations: it warns that questions replaces the FULL screen list with no per-screen patch, that unknown fields are REJECTED rather than silently ignored, and that enabled:false stores but disables rules. It also explains validation behavior, legacy migration, and destructive update semantics, all of which align with the destructiveHint annotation.

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 long but proportionate to the tool's complexity, with a clear front-loaded purpose followed by structured sections for Args, Returns, validation, and conditional logic. Minor redundancy exists around 'unknown fields are REJECTED,' mentioned twice, which keeps it from a perfect score.

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?

Despite having no output schema and sparse schema descriptions, the description covers return shape, validation rules, auth requirements, the full conditional-logic grammar, and the safe workflow for editing one screen. An agent has enough to invoke the tool correctly and reason about edge cases.

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 coverage is only 33%, so the description carries most of the parameter burden. It clearly marks form_id as required, lists all optional fields, and gives deep semantics for questions including the full conditional logic structure. The remaining params like theme and thank_you_message are only labeled optional, but their names and schema types provide enough context.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing form's fields,' including conditional logic. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like foxform_create_form by emphasizing 'existing' and the partial-update behavior ('Only the fields you pass are changed').

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 establishes clear usage context: it requires a WRITE-scoped API key, only changes provided fields, and even prescribes a workflow using foxform_get_form to retrieve and edit a screen's logic. It does not explicitly enumerate when not to use it versus create or publish tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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