inspect_form

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description usefully adds that the tool performs a network navigation and returns raw HTML of form elements. It omits auth/session requirements, which matters given a sibling 'login' tool exists, and says nothing about rate limits or fetch failures.

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 front-loaded sentence with the action first and the return payload second; nothing is wasted. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter debugging tool.

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 simple one-param tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, the description tells the agent both what it does and what it returns. Only the auth/network-side-effect details are missing.

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?

There is only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents it fully. The description reinforces that the URL must be a CvLAC URL, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond that.

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 names a specific verb+resource: it navigates to a CvLAC URL and returns the HTML of form inputs/selects/textareas. This clearly separates it from content-reading siblings like read_cvlac or read_portfolio, though it never explicitly names those alternatives.

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?

'for debugging field names' states a concrete use context, so an agent knows this is a diagnostics/introspection call rather than a data-retrieval one. It stops short of naming when NOT to use it or pointing at a sibling alternative.

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