analyze_exam_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the safety burden and does disclose something genuinely useful: no network calls and no platform writes, i.e. a pure read-only offline transform. However it says nothing about behavior on malformed/empty HTML, whether it fails or partial-parses, or what it extracts.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the offline/read-only constraint is stated up front.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a one-parameter tool is simple. The remaining gap is provenance of html_source, which an agent must guess at among many capture-related siblings.

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% for the single required html_source param, so the description must compensate. It only hints that the value is previously captured exam HTML; it does not specify raw HTML string vs. file path vs. saved capture artifact, which is the main ambiguity 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?

States a concrete verb (parse) and resource (exam HTML) with the scope qualifier 'already captured ... offline', which separates it from live-page siblings like inspect_exam_page. It does not name any sibling explicitly, so it falls short of full differentiation.

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?

'already captured exam HTML offline' implies the precondition that HTML must have been obtained beforehand (e.g. via capture/observation tools), but no alternative tool is named and no explicit when-not guidance is given. Usage must be inferred.

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