suggest_form_pattern

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or any side effects. The description only states it returns recommendations without further behavioral context.

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 concise, consisting of two sentences that clearly state purpose and output. There is no unnecessary fluff, though additional structure could improve readability.

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 tool has 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description mentions return of recommendations but does not explain the format or structure of the output. It lacks information on error handling, platform-specific behavior, or integration with other tools.

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% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema, explaining the parameters in a generic way. 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 clearly states the tool recommends optimal form layout and validation patterns, specifying it returns layout recommendations, field types, and validation strategies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'suggest_pattern' or 'suggest_animation' which focus on different aspects.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'suggest_pattern' or other UX analysis tools. There is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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