format_html

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action (format/beautify) but does not clarify whether the file is overwritten in place, whether a formatted copy is returned, what side effects occur (e.g., line endings, encoding), or any permission/error behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely mutates a file.

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 immediately conveys the core action and target. It is front-loaded and free of filler. However, it is so brief that it could be considered under-specification rather than concise efficiency; adding a second sentence with usage or side-effect details would improve it without losing conciseness.

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 moderate complexity (2 parameters, nested options object, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no information about return values, side effects, option semantics, or error handling. This is a minimal viable description at best, likely leading to misuse.

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 has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not compensate by explaining any parameters. The required 'file_path' and the 'options' object (with 'max_tokens' and 'compression') are completely unexplained. An agent cannot know what values are valid, what 'compression' means in the context of HTML formatting, or how 'max_tokens' affects behavior.

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's action (format/beautify) and target (an existing HTML file), which distinguishes it from siblings like patch_html or write_html_file. However, it lacks explicit differentiation from potential alternatives with similar formatting capabilities, and the phrase 'existing' could mean either modify in place or format and return, which is slightly ambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where another sibling tool would be more appropriate. The only implicit cue is the tool name and the brief action phrase, which is insufficient for an agent to decide between format_html and tools like edit_html_range or write_html_file.

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