zerodom_hidden_fields

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly discloses the key nontrivial behavior: hidden fields are excluded from the node graph, and results are name/value/CSS-selector triples. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, but 'List' and the output framing make side effects very unlikely.

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?

Three sentences with no filler: the first announces the action, the second explains the rationale for the tool's existence, and the third describes the output and downstream use. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool, the description fully covers selection trigger, output shape, and downstream usage. It even explains why hidden fields are not part of the normal node graph, addressing a likely source of agent confusion. The presence of an output schema also reduces the need for the description to detail return structure.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there is no schema information for the description to supplement. The description still adds useful implicit scope by saying 'current page' and explaining how returned values feed into zerodom_fill_node. This matches the baseline for a zero-parameter tool.

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 first sentence names the exact verb and resource: list hidden `<input type="hidden">` fields on the current page. It also distinguishes itself from general page/finding tools by explaining that hidden inputs are deliberately not graph nodes. This is specific and immediately differentiates it from siblings like zerodom_find or zerodom_read_page.

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 a concrete trigger: use this when re-submitting a POST after a stale parse is missing hidden payload fields such as CSRF tokens or view state. It also explains why hidden fields should not be treated as clickable nodes and points to zerodom_fill_node as the downstream consumer. This gives an agent both when and how to use the tool.

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