arc_get_page_forms

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states 'get', suggesting a read-only operation, but does not confirm side effects, prerequisites, or whether the tool mutates state. The return format is also unspecified.

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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It avoids unnecessary words. However, it could be slightly expanded without becoming verbose to improve completeness.

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 description is minimal and does not elaborate on what 'form information' includes (e.g., field names, values, labels). Given no output schema, this lack of detail leaves the agent uncertain about the return structure. More context is needed for a complete understanding.

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?

The single parameter tab_index has a clear schema description in Japanese specifying it is optional and defaults to the active tab. Since schema coverage is 100%, the tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema. 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 'ページ内のフォーム情報を取得する' clearly states the verb 'get' and the resource 'form information in the page'. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like arc_fill_form and arc_fill which perform actions on forms, not retrieval. However, it lacks specificity on what exactly constitutes 'form information' (e.g., fields, values, structure).

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 form information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives like arc_fill_form or arc_get_page_content. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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