prettify_document

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits; it does not mention truncation behavior, size limits (max_size_bytes, max_output_chars), truncate_on_limit logic, or the dual-input mechanism (html or document_handle). The only behavioral hint is 'for visual inspection' implying formatting, which is minimal.

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, efficient sentence with no filler, but it omits essential parameter and behavior context, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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 tool with 5 parameters, size limits, and truncation options, the one-sentence description is incomplete. An output schema exists but does not compensate for missing guidance on how to choose input source or what limits apply.

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 provides no parameter explanations. All 5 optional parameters (html, max_size_bytes, document_handle, max_output_chars, truncate_on_limit) are left entirely undocumented, forcing the agent to guess their roles.

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 returns prettified HTML for visual inspection, identifying its core function. It distinguishes from sibling parsing/inspecting tools by emphasizing 'prettified' formatting, though it doesn't explicitly mention input sources (html string or document_handle).

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_document or parse_html_document, nor are there any exclusions or context about suitability. The description entirely omits usage context.

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