inspect_pdf_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 the output format (JSON array of form field definitions) but does not mention side effects, permissions, error conditions (e.g., PDF without form fields), or performance constraints. The term 'inspect' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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 very concise: two sentences for purpose plus a neat Args/Returns section. Every line adds value, and the main action is front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers input format, output structure, and core behavior. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it omits behavior for edge cases like PDFs with no form fields, which could be clarified.

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 description adds meaning beyond the input schema by specifying that pdf_base64 should be a 'Base64-encoded PDF file with form fields,' which clarifies both the encoding and the requirement for form fields. The schema only provides a title.

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 inspects form fields in a PDF and returns their names, types, and values. It uses a specific verb ('inspect') and resource ('form fields in a PDF'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like fill_pdf_form or extract_text_from_pdf.

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 needing to examine form fields, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., fill_pdf_form, extract_text_from_pdf) or 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.