store_html_document

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that storage is in-memory (volatile) and that a summary is returned, but omits crucial behaviors such as how size limits are enforced (max_size_bytes, truncate_on_limit), whether storing replaces existing documents, or what the summary actually contains.

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, direct sentence with no fluff and front-loads the main action. It is efficient but omits important detail, which is a trade-off; however, for conciseness alone it scores well.

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?

With 5 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema that is not explained, the description is incomplete. It does not mention how stored documents are referenced later, what the summary includes, or how the cache behaves under limits. Sibling tools imply a workflow, but this description does not connect to it.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references the 'html' parameter ('Store raw HTML') and says nothing about label, source_url, max_size_bytes, or truncate_on_limit. The description adds minimal value over the raw schema.

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?

Clearly states the action (store) and resource (raw HTML) with a specific destination (server's in-memory document cache) and result (scraper_rs summary). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_documents, delete_document, and parse_html_document, though the terminology 'scraper_rs summary' is somewhat opaque.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies a use case (storing HTML for later processing), but does not state exclusions, prerequisites, or when to prefer a sibling tool like parse_html_document or silkworm_fetch.

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