klax_generate_study_guide_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses important traits: local reuse of indexed materials, preservation of source/locators, a required prior indexing step, no KLAS interaction, and a constrained output path. It does not mention overwrite behavior or the effect of include_link_analysis, but the core side effect and prerequisites are clearly communicated.

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 short, front-loaded with the main action, and every sentence earns its place: the core purpose, the prerequisites, and the output constraint are all stated without repetition 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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need to be explained, and the prerequisites plus output_path constraint are well covered. The main gap is input semantics: include_link_analysis is an optional boolean defaulting to true with no description, and the meaning of the generated 'link analysis' section is not clarified. For a 4-parameter tool, this is a noticeable completeness gap.

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 0% and the schema provides no property descriptions, so the description must compensate. It does add real meaning for output_path by requiring a .html file under the home directory, and course_id is inferable from the indexing context. However, include_link_analysis and title receive no explanation, and include_link_analysis in particular is opaque.

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 verb and resource: it generates a single HTML study guide from already-indexed local lecture materials, preserving sources, page locators, and slide locators. It does not explicitly differentiate from the similar sibling klax_write_study_note_html, so it falls short of a 5, but the core action and constraints are unmistakable.

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 gives explicit prerequisites: klax_download_material and klax_index_learning_material must be run first. It also tells the agent that this tool does not write to KLAS and that output_path must be a local .html file under the home directory. However, it does not mention when to prefer this over alternatives such as klax_generate_quiz or klax_write_study_note_html.

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