list_form_fields

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that it returns field names, types, current values, and page locations, which is useful output context. It does not mention behavior on PDFs without form fields (empty result vs error) or password requirements, leaving a gap.

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 compact line with no filler, front-loading the returned fields. It is appropriately sized, though the fragment style ('Fillable fields of the form:') is slightly terse rather than a complete sentence.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema documenting return values, the description covers the essentials of what is returned. However, it omits authentication context for the password parameter, behavior on non-form PDFs, and any connection to the fill_form workflow, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types, not meaning. The description does not explain that 'path' is the PDF file location or that 'password' unlocks encrypted PDFs. However, with only two parameters and an output schema present, the baseline of 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 states a specific action and resource: listing the fillable fields of a form. Given the sibling list, no other tool provides form field enumeration, so the purpose is unambiguous. It stops just short of an explicit verb phrase ('Lists...') but the intent is clear.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'fill_form' clearly depends on knowing field names, but the description does not make that relationship explicit or state any preconditions (e.g., the PDF must contain interactive form fields).

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