unescapehtml

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

With no annotations, the description alone discloses behavior. It explicitly lists the supported entities (cent, yen, euro, pound, lt, gt, copy, reg, quote, amp, apos, and nbsp), which is a key limitation. It does not mention edge cases like unsupported entities or numeric character references, but the provided list adds meaningful behavioral context.

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 two sentences: the first delivers the core action and examples, the second lists supported entities. No redundant words or filler; every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

For a simple parameterless utility with no annotations or output schema, the description is complete. It explains the action and enumerates the supported entity set, which is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific details, but none are needed. The schema is empty, so schema description coverage is trivially 100%.

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 converts entity characters to HTML equivalents, with concrete examples (&lt; to <). It lists specific supported entities, making the tool's function unmistakable and distinguishing it from the inverse sibling 'escapehtml'.

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 by describing the conversion operation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'escapehtml'. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, so guidance is limited.

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