test_form_validation

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It describes the actions (find, check, collect) but does not disclose whether the tool modifies the page, requires a session, or what side effects occur. It is a read-only analysis tool, but this is unstated. The description is adequate but lacks full 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 a single sentence with no redundant words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Analyze forms on a page') and efficiently lists sub-actions. Every word contributes value.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat incomplete. It describes the actions but does not specify the return format or how results are presented. For an agent to use the output effectively, more detail about what 'collect validation messages' returns would be needed.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (url, project, session_id, form_selector). It tells what the tool does overall but does not clarify parameter details or their roles beyond what's in the schema.

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's purpose with specific verbs: 'find all forms, check required fields, collect validation messages'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like auto_fill_form or fill_form that perform actions rather than analysis. The resource ('forms on a page') and the scope are explicitly defined.

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 you need to analyze form validation on a page, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., after filling a form, or using assert_condition). No when-not-to-use or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context.

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