html_utils_dev-tools

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about whether sanitizar/minificar destroy content, what permissions are needed, or how outputs differ across 12 operations. The single list sentence conveys intent but zero behavioral traits beyond the name.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the enumeration is immediately scannable. The laundry-list style is slightly dense but every token is doing work. It could have traded one or two verbs for real usage guidance, but nothing is wasted.

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?

A 12-operation, 14-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations needs the description to explain how behaviors and returns vary by operation, which it never does. It is complete enough only because the schema documents each parameter; the operation-level semantics remain unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100% and each of the 14 parameters carries a clear inline description, including conditional notes like 'apenas para operação comparar'. The description itself adds no parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific resource (HTML) and enumerates the operations it bundles, so an agent knows this is an HTML processing hub. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but the siblings (json_utils, xml_utils, base64_utils) target other formats, so the domain separation is mostly self-evident. The verb list is a grab-bag rather than a single crisp verb, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to pick this tool over alternatives, nor any hint about which operation to choose for a given intent. The 'obrigatório para maioria das operações' style detail lives only in the schema, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. An agent gets a verb list but no routing logic.

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