webdev_html_minifier

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: it runs locally via a Node bridge, is non-destructive, contacts no external service, and is rate-limited. It also clarifies it's a regex/heuristic minifier, not an HTML parser, and that conditional comments are preserved. No contradiction with annotations.

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 concise yet comprehensive, covering purpose, parameters, usage guidelines, limitations, and performance characteristics in a well-structured paragraph. Every sentence contributes meaningful information without redundancy.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the main function, all optional transforms, usage with sibling tools, behavioral caveats, and return value components (minified HTML plus sizes/savings/ratio). No gaps remain.

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 100%, so parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by summarizing that 'every transform is an independent boolean toggle', which clarifies the parameter structure. Although it doesn't add details beyond the schema, it provides a useful high-level overview.

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 it minifies HTML by stripping comments, collapsing whitespace, and other transforms. It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools like webdev_css_minifier and webdev_js_minifier by noting their separate use cases for standalone files. The verb 'minify' and resource 'HTML' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use webdev_css_minifier or webdev_js_minifier to compress standalone stylesheets/scripts, web_dev_html_to_markdown to convert HTML to Markdown, and webdev_javascript_beautifier to expand rather than compress.' It also warns about unusual markup due to the regex/heuristic approach.

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