check_form_validity

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It adequately states the tool returns validity details per element, but does not disclose behavior for missing selectors, error handling, or whether it has side effects. A read-only hint is missing.

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 unnecessary words. The first sentence defines the main action, the second elaborates on output. Ideal for quick scanning.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently explains return values (validity details with example properties). It lacks details on potential errors or the structure of the response, but the level of detail is adequate for most use 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?

Input schema covers all 4 parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by listing example validation constraints (valueMissing, typeMismatch, patternMismatch) that the schema does not enumerate, providing richer context for the return format.

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 that the tool checks HTML5 form validation state for a form or form elements, listing specific validity properties like valueMissing and typeMismatch. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('HTML5 form validation state'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on CSS properties, assertions, or page navigation.

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 implies usage for verifying form validation before submission, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool relative to alternatives. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate contexts.

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