Find login and registration forms

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of what is inspected (form id, action, field name/type/autocomplete), which compensates for the absence of an output schema.

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, zero waste, with the return contents front-loaded and the usage rule following. Nothing is repeated from the title or schema.

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 read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description supplies the essential return structure and the workflow context. Minor gaps remain — no mention of behavior when no form exists or whether it inspects iframes/shadow DOM — but the agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 single 'context' parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description says nothing about tab targeting or what happens if the context is omitted, so it adds no value over the structured field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Inspect the page for login/registration forms') and enumerates exactly what is returned: form id, action, and input fields with name/type/autocomplete. It is clearly distinct from data-oriented siblings like browser_list_logins, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

'Use this before filling a form so the field names are known instead of guessed' gives a concrete when-to-use condition and implicitly points toward the fill step. It stops short of naming the sibling tool (browser_fill_login) or stating when not to use it.

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