html_html_text

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

The description discloses core behaviors: stripping tags, skipping script/style blocks, and preserving paragraph breaks. However, it does not explain the behavior of the 'max_chars' parameter (e.g., truncation limit) or address error handling for invalid HTML. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and the omission of the optional parameter's effect is 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 extremely concise, using two sentences that front-load the main functionality and add a usage hint. No redundant words; every sentence adds 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's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the main behavior and typical use case. However, it fails to describe the 'max_chars' parameter, which is a notable gap in completeness. For a tool with only two parameters, this omission reduces completeness.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must define parameters. The 'html' parameter is implied by the tool's purpose, but 'max_chars' is not explained anywhere. The description adds no semantic detail beyond what the name suggests, leaving the optional parameter ambiguous.

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 that the tool extracts all visible text from an HTML string, stripping tags and skipping script/style blocks while preserving paragraph breaks. It also suggests usage after FetchTool, distinguishing it from sibling tools like html_html_links or html_html_tables which extract specific elements.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool after FetchTool to make web content readable, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools, the intended use case is well-defined.

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