inspect_form_row

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes that this is a safe read, so the description carries a lighter burden, but it adds little beyond that. It clarifies that the whole row is returned rather than a fragment, yet says nothing about what the row inspection contains, whether formxml is modified or merely parsed, or why a formxml string must be supplied to inspect it.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler and no redundancy. It is efficiently structured, though the compactness comes partly at the cost of the missing detail noted elsewhere rather than from disciplined editing.

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?

With four parameters, three of them required and undocumented, no output schema, and only a minimal annotation set, the description should have covered the shape of the formxml input and the row contents returned. It leaves those gaps entirely unaddressed.

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 only 25% — only environment_profile is documented in the schema — so the description needed to explain formxml, section_id, and cell_id. Instead it merely restates the parameter names, leaving the agent to guess the expected form of the formxml payload and the ID formats.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Inspect") with a specific resource ("an entire form row") and states the selection key (section and cell IDs), so an agent can tell it reads a whole row rather than a single cell. It does not, however, distinguish this from the close sibling inspect_form_node, which is likely the per-node counterpart an agent would also be choosing between.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (inspect_form_node, inspect_form_candidate_scope, prepare_form_row_candidate). The only selection hint is the mechanical "selected by section and cell IDs," which is parameter mechanics rather than usage routing.

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