validate_local_html

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

With no annotations, the description reveals that the tool uses a remote API, implying network dependency and potential latency. However, it does not disclose specific behaviors like file size limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description adds context but lacks depth.

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 at 18 words across two sentences, front-loading the core purpose and using no filler. Every sentence contributes 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 (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is largely complete. It covers the primary purpose and API dependency. Minor improvements could include noting the output format or potential errors.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter filePath with a clear description. The tool's description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 clearly states the tool validates a local HTML file using the official W3C Nu HTML Checker API, specifying it catches syntax, tags, and compliance errors. This distinctively sets it apart from sibling tools like validate_url or validate_local_css.

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 for local HTML validation but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_url or validate_local_css. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria is provided.

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