verify_form

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. '回读' strongly implies a non-mutating read operation, and '当前真实值' adds useful nuance that it returns the actual current value. However, it does not explicitly state that no side effects occur, nor does it describe error cases or return behavior.

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 short sentences: the first states the core purpose and behavior, the second covers the special wildcard case. There is no redundant or filler content, 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 one-parameter read-back tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the action, when to use it, and the only special input value. It could mention the return format or behavior for invalid fields, but the sibling tool context and simple scope make this adequate.

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 already documents the msgs parameter well, including the wildcard, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds context about 'current real values' and the purpose of validation, but it does not meaningfully extend the parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides.

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 identifies a specific action (回读/read back), a specific resource (specified msg fields), and the intended use case (post-fill verification). It distinguishes itself from fill_form by describing a read-back operation, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with inspect_form.

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 clear context: this is for validating after the form has been filled ('用于填写后校验'). It does not list exclusions or explicitly name alternatives, but the usage context is concrete enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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