Format local HTML, CSS or YAML

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

Annotations already cover safety (no destruction, no open world), and the description adds substantive context beyond them: pre-save verification, that HTML formatting alters whitespace and implicit closing, that this is not sanitization, and that nothing is executed or fetched. What's missing is behavior around writing to output_path, such as whether an existing file is overwritten.

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?

Four tightly packed sentences with no filler, and the core capability is stated first. The caveat sentences are dense but each carries distinct information; the prose is slightly crammed rather than bloated.

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 covers what the tool does and key caveats, but with no output schema it should say what is returned and what happens to an existing output_path for a write tool. Those operational details are absent, leaving a moderate gap.

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 coverage is only 40%, and the description adds just one parameter-relevant nuance: minification applies only to supported HTML/CSS, implying YAML cannot be minified. It says nothing about indent values or how minify interacts with indent, leaving real gaps relative to the low coverage.

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 specific verb pair (pretty-print/minify) and concrete resources (HTML/CSS/YAML), which cleanly separates it from siblings like abox_xml_format and abox_json_format. It doesn't name those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation is inferable rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied by the language list and the pretty-print/minify framing, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or routing to abox_xml_format or abox_json_format for XML/JSON inputs. The agent must infer the boundary itself.

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