encoding_decoding_html_entities

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions encoding/decoding and a security benefit but does not disclose side effects, idempotency, error handling, or behavior for invalid input.

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?

Relatively concise at two sentences plus a reference to describe_tool. However, the 'Menu ID' line adds noise and could be omitted. The structure is acceptable but not optimized.

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 4 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use the tool or what the output provides. The pointer to describe_tool indicates that more detail is needed.

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 coverage is 0%, yet description does not explain any of the four required parameters (text, operation, mode, format). Adds no meaning beyond the schema's structure.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as HTML entity encoding/decoding, with a specific verb and resource. It mentions use cases (XSS prevention, proper display). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling encoding tools like base64 or URL encoding.

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?

Provides context for when to encode (XSS prevention, display) but does not specify when not to use it or mention alternatives. The suggestion to use describe_tool for full guidance implies limitations.

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