get_form_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, modifies the page, or has any side effects. While 'get analysis' suggests a read operation, it does not openly disclose safety or behavior beyond the purpose, leaving a gap in transparency.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with an emoji indicating newness. It conveys the core purpose and output details efficiently with no redundant phrases. Every word contributes to understanding, making it concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity and full schema coverage for parameters, the description offers adequate context. It lists the analysis contents (field types, labels, required status, validation rules), which provides a clear picture of the return value even without an output schema. However, it does not mention any limitations like whether only visible forms are analyzed, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an analysis tool.

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 covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions (formSelector, includeSuggestions). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level information, but the baseline for high schema coverage is 3, which is appropriate here.

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 clearly states the tool's function: getting a detailed analysis of forms on a page, listing specific elements like field types, labels, required status, and validation rules. The verb 'get' plus the resource 'analysis of forms' is specific and distinguishes it from related tools like detect_login_form or smart_fill_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 implies usage when you need form analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The context of analyzing forms is clear, but there is no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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