check_html_usage

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes what the tool catches but does not state whether it is read-only or has side effects. Since it is a validation tool, it is likely non-destructive, but that is not explicitly stated. The listed checks provide useful transparency, but safety and side effects are omitted.

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 two concise sentences with no extraneous words. The first sentence efficiently lists what the tool catches, and the second provides usage advice. It is front-loaded with key purpose and features. Slightly more structure (e.g., separating checks and usage) could improve readability, but overall very 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 no output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns (e.g., errors list, success message). It does not mention return format or behavior on success/failure. The purpose is clear, but for a validation tool, agents may need to know how to interpret results. Sibling tools likely have similar expectations.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond mentioning 'consumer HTML', 'component CEM', and 'tag name'. It does not explain libraryId or htmlText further. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema already describes parameters adequately.

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 validates consumer HTML against a component CEM and lists specific checks (invalid slot names, wrong enum attribute values, boolean attribute misuse, unknown attributes with typo suggestions). It also says to run on any HTML using web components. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like validate_usage or check_slot_children, so it loses a point for lack of sibling distinction.

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 by saying 'Run this on any HTML using web components to catch markup mistakes.' This provides context but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor alternatives. Given the many sibling tools for similar checks, better usage directions would help.

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