pdf_get_form_fields

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

Annotations cover safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), but description adds valuable context about return data structure and edge case behavior (hasForm: false) that annotations cannot provide. Does not mention error handling or performance characteristics.

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 sentences with zero waste. First sentence front-loads core functionality with specific attributes; second sentence covers the empty-result edge case. Every word earns its place.

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?

Strong compensation for missing output schema by detailing return fields (names, types, values, required status, hasForm flag). Would benefit from explicit mention of return type structure (array vs object) or error conditions, but adequate for a simple read-only inspection 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear description of filePath. Description focuses on operation behavior rather than parameter constraints, which is acceptable given the schema completeness. Baseline 3 appropriate when schema carries full documentation 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?

Description uses specific verb 'List' with clear resource 'form fields' and enumerates exactly what attributes are returned (names, types, current values, required status). Effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like pdf_extract_text (general text) and pdf_fill_form (writing).

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?

Implies usage by detailing return structure including hasForm flag for PDFs without forms, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., 'use before pdf_fill_form to inspect fields' or 'do not use for general text extraction').

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