parse_governance_block_html

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It only mentions what it looks for (script/meta tags) but omits critical details: return format, error handling (e.g., missing block), side effects (none expected), and performance considerations. This leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's output and failure modes.

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, focused sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and adds a clarifying detail. Every word serves a purpose, making it highly efficient.

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 absence of an output schema, the description should explain the return value. It does not. Additionally, the complexity is low (one param), but without output context, the agent cannot determine what to do with the result. This incompleteness hinders correct invocation.

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?

The single parameter 'html' has schema description 'HTML content to parse', and the tool description adds minimal extra meaning (it's HTML from which to extract governance block). Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3, and there is no substantive enhancement beyond restating the input's purpose.

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 explicitly states 'Extract a governance block from an HTML page' and specifies the targets (APS governance script tags or meta tags). This clearly identifies the verb (extract) and resource (governance block from HTML), distinguishing it from sibling tools like generate_governance_block or verify_governance_block.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or prerequisites. For example, it does not mention that the HTML must contain specific APS tags, nor compare it to parsing tools like verify_governance_block. The agent gets no context for appropriate usage.

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