parse_html_fragment

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'parse' which implies read-only, but does not state side-effect freedom, performance implications, or error behavior. The added implementation detail 'using scraper_rs.parse_fragment' does not aid transparency.

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, which is structurally clear. However, it includes the unnecessary implementation detail 'using scraper_rs.parse_fragment', which adds no agent-relevant value and wastes words.

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 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is far too sparse. It does not explain parameter interplay, size limits, truncation behavior, or how document_handle differs from direct html input, making it inadequate for reliable tool 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description offers no explanation of the five parameters. It only hints at 'html' via 'HTML fragment', but source_url, max_size_bytes, document_handle, and truncate_on_limit remain completely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to infer their meaning or defaults.

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 states a specific action—parsing an HTML fragment into a structured node tree—which clearly identifies the resource and operation. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like parse_html_document, but the term 'fragment' offers some distinction.

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 the tool is for parsing HTML fragments but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as parse_html_document or query_selector. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving usage context only vaguely implied.

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