get_page_html_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully specifies that the return value includes not just HTML but also categories, links, and sections. However, it lacks operational context such as authentication requirements, rate limits, caching behavior, or whether this is a read-only operation.

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 uses a clean docstring format with clear 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. It is appropriately front-loaded with the core action statement, and every line conveys essential information without redundancy or filler.

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's simplicity (single parameter) and the existence of an output schema, the description provides a minimally complete picture by summarizing return values. However, for a tool with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, it should ideally include operational constraints or error handling guidance to be fully complete.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage. The description compensates by documenting the single 'title' parameter as 'Page title to parse', which provides basic semantics. However, it lacks detail on expected format (e.g., whether namespace prefixes are required, URL encoding, case sensitivity) given the lack of schema documentation.

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 a wiki page to HTML, providing a specific verb, resource, and output format. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_page_tool' (likely raw content) or 'parse_wikitext_tool' (potentially different input/output), which could cause selection uncertainty.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_page_tool' or 'parse_wikitext_tool'. There are no prerequisites, error conditions, or explicit 'when-not-to-use' statements to aid agent selection.

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