form_introspect

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Analyse a form' and the list of read-only attributes (current value, validation state) make the non-destructive intent clear, and 'Tells you what to fill' explicitly stops short of filling. It does not explicitly state 'read-only' or document failure modes, but the behavioral profile is well conveyed.

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 sentences with no fluff: the first names the operation and all key output dimensions, the second gives the practical value. Every clause earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the core behavior.

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 single-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description is complete: it specifies what the tool analyzes, what per-field results are returned, and when an agent should reach for it. The input schema handles the empty-selector edge case, so there are no significant gaps for correct selection and invocation.

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 input schema fully documents the single form_selector parameter, including its default value and the empty-selector behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-specific syntax or constraints, so it does not need to compensate; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact resource ('a form') and a specific inspection verb ('Analyse'), then enumerates the per-field data returned: label, type, current value, constraints, validation state, and framework. This clearly frames the tool as read-only form analysis, distinguishing it from snapshot tools and fill tools.

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 two concrete use triggers: knowing what to fill and diagnosing why a submit is rejected. It also implies a when-not by contrasting with snapshot-based guessing. It does not explicitly name fill_form or smart_fill as the alternatives for actually filling, so it falls just short of fully explicit routing.

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