form_scan

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

No annotations exist and the description only names the action and target. It does not disclose whether scanning is read-only, what 'gate controls' means, whether a state is returned, or any side effects; this leaves critical behavioral ambiguity.

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 a single, clear sentence with no filler. It is efficiently front-loaded but somewhat terse, lacking any structural aids like bullet points or definitions for jargon.

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?

At one sentence, the description is far too minimal for a tool that operates within a large browser automation context. It fails to convey when to use the scan, what to expect from the output (even if the output schema exists), or how it relates to other browser tools.

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 provides complete descriptions for both parameters, so the description need not add parameter info. However, it adds no extra semantic nuance beyond the schema, making the baseline score 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 uses a specific verb 'Scan' with a clear resource 'current page' and identifies target artifact types ('fillable form fields', 'gate controls'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools, though 'gate controls' is somewhat vague jargon.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool, prerequisites, or alternatives. It simply states what the tool does without any context or exclusions.

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