Edtb Form Info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It does add useful context: the operation is 'headless' and produces a structured parse result, implying a non-mutating read/analysis operation. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies anything, what prerequisites exist, or how errors or missing forms are handled.

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, front-loaded sentence: it names the resource, the action, the output categories, and the headless mode. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

The output schema covers return-value structure, but the tool lacks annotations, usage guidance, and parameter explanations. For a tool with three parameters and no schema descriptions, relying on 'Разбор Form.form' alone is incomplete for reliable 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 0% and the description does not explain objectName, formName, or projectPath. The phrase 'Form.form' loosely implies which inputs identify a form, but without explicit parameter semantics an agent must infer the meaning of objectName vs formName and projectPath.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Разбор Form.form' (parse Form.form), and specifies the decomposition result {elements, commands, params, events}. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear and distinguishes it from mutation-focused siblings like edtb_form_compile and edtb_form_remove.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool rather than related info/parse tools such as edtb_interface_info or edtb_mxl_info. There is no mention of expected context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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