analyze_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered without description help. The description adds that complexity is heuristic and that a calibrated rate is optional, but it does not explain how complexity is computed or what the summary contains.

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?

A single compact sentence with no wasted clauses, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification.

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?

With no output schema, 0% parameter descriptions, and a required 'path' argument, the description must carry more weight than it does. It omits the expected path format, what the complexity score means, and what the summary returns.

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 description must compensate and largely fails. 'path' — the required parameter — is never mentioned, and the 'hourly rate' phrasing does not clearly map to the 'hours_per_point' parameter, whose units and effect on output remain undefined.

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?

States a concrete verb+resource: 'Summarize Forms metadata and heuristic complexity.' An agent can tell this is an analysis/summary tool rather than a raw fetch like get_source or an enumeration like list_forms. However, 'heuristic complexity' is unexplained jargon, so the exact output is somewhat opaque.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and none of the siblings (list_forms, migration_risks, plan_apex) are named as alternatives. The optional hourly-rate clause hints at cost/effort estimation but never states the scenario that should trigger this tool.

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