Extract Components

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

The description explains the core behavior (parsing, mapping, confidence scoring) beyond what annotations provide. Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent nature, and the description adds context without contradiction.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys all essential information without waste. Every word earns its place.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and clear annotations, the description is sufficient to understand the tool's purpose and behavior. It could benefit from mentioning the output structure (e.g., an array of components with scores), but the core functionality is well-covered.

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 the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'confidence scoring' which relates to confidenceThreshold, but adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 parses HTML into reusable components and maps them to specific libraries with confidence scoring. It distinguishes itself from siblings like sp_to_react by focusing on component extraction and mapping.

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 implies usage for converting HTML to component library equivalents, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sp_to_react, sp_analyze, etc. No when-not-to-use information or prerequisites are given.

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