Analyze HTML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds behavioral context: it analyzes and makes recommendations, detecting categories like accessibility issues and framework conversion. 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?

Two sentences are concise and front-loaded. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second lists detection categories. No unnecessary 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 the tool has only one parameter, good annotations, and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for understanding what the tool does and when to use 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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'html' with description 'HTML to analyze'. Description does not add significant extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states verb 'analyze' and resource 'HTML', specifies it recommends which stitch-pro tools to run, and lists specific detection categories (accessibility, responsiveness, framework conversion, component library mapping). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform specific actions on HTML.

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?

Description implies using this tool when you want to know which specific stitch-pro tools are appropriate for a given HTML snippet. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but the context of sibling tools suggests using specific tools after analysis.

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