pdf_get_form_fields

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds value by specifying the return behavior for PDFs without forms ('Returns hasForm: false'), which is not in annotations. This provides useful context beyond safety hints.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary action and return details. Every word adds value, and the description is efficiently structured.

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 the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no output schema) and supportive annotations, the description covers the essential behavior. It explains the return for PDFs without forms. However, it omits potential error cases or file validation, which might be needed for a complete understanding.

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% (filePath described with maxLength). The description adds no additional parameter semantics; it does not mention file path format, file existence requirements, or error handling. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already covers the parameter.

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 'List', the resource 'form fields in a PDF', and specifies the returned data (names, types, current values, required status). It also mentions a special return case for PDFs without forms, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like pdf_fill_form or pdf_flatten.

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 guidance on when or when not to use this tool. The description implies usage for inspecting form fields, but does not reference alternatives or prerequisites. Minimal guidance for an agent to decide between this and other PDF tools.

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