inspect_form

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses useful behavior: optional profile-based login, hidden fields being returned, and 'best-effort multi-step grouping'. However it never states that no submission/state mutation occurs, nor anything about navigation, timeouts, or failure modes on unloadable pages.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the action and then the return payload. No wasted clauses, though the long comma-listed enumeration of field attributes is slightly heavy for one sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the returned field metadata in detail, and it covers the login precondition. Error handling and page-load failure behavior remain unaddressed, which is the main 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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents url, headed, formSelector, and loginProfile. The description adds only marginal value by restating the optional login step that maps to loginProfile; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (load/inspect) and resource (form fields on a page) and enumerates exactly what is returned, making it clearly distinct from siblings fill_and_submit and generate_test_data.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives named. The user must infer from the sibling names that this is the reconnaissance step before filling/submitting, but the description never says so.

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