word_export_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: uses mammoth, creates parent directory if missing, returns absolute output path, and raises specific errors. Missing details on permissions or side effects, but sufficient for a conversion tool.

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?

Well-structured with Args, Returns, Raises sections. Some verbosity like delegation line, but overall efficient. Information is relevant and front-loaded.

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 output schema exists, description still explains return format and errors. Covers inputs, outputs, and key behavior. Does not mention performance or large file handling, but adequate for a simple conversion tool with three parameters.

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 0%, so description compensates fully. It explains each parameter: path ('existing .docx'), output ('target HTML, parent dir created'), folder ('optional base folder'). Adds meaning beyond schema titles.

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 'Convert a .docx file to HTML via mammoth,' specifying input format, output format, and underlying library. It distinguishes from siblings like excel_export_html and word_export_pdf by focusing on Word-to-HTML conversion and noting no LibreOffice dependency.

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 .docx to HTML conversion but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like convert_document. No prerequisites or exclusions are provided, relying on implicit context.

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