inspect_form_solution_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description does add genuine behavioral scope limits — inspection is 'bounded', undeclared items may be nested and dependency completeness is explicitly not verified — which is valuable context an agent would otherwise assume. It stops short of stating what is returned or how bounded the read is.

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, front-loaded with the scope of inspection and followed by the caveat, with no filler. The sizing is appropriate; the issue is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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, a nested component array with enum types, 25% schema coverage and no output schema, the description leaves too much unstated. It never says what the inspection yields (declarations found? hash mismatches?), which an agent needs in order to decide whether this tool answers its question. The stated limits are useful but do not fill the gap.

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%, so the description would need to compensate but does not. It does not explain that file_path and content_base64 are alternative sources of the ZIP, nor the meaning of the component_type enum values (2/9/60/61) or expected_hash. 'Selected form XML and Web resource payload hashes' only loosely gestures at the components array.

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 object set: it inspects ZIP root declarations, selected form XML and Web resource payload hashes of a local form solution package. This is far more precise than 'inspect package', though it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as plan_form_solution_package, apply_form_solution_package or inspect_solution_package.

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 and no named alternative. An agent must infer from the sibling list that this is a pre-apply verification step rather than the planner or applier, and nothing states whether this should run before plan_form_solution_package or apply_form_solution_package.

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