escape_html

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 does not specify which characters get escaped/unescaped, whether it handles named or numeric entities, or what the default behavior is beyond an implicit understanding. The one-line description lacks behavioral detail.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose without redundancy.

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?

For a simple two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it leaves gaps such as which HTML entities are affected and what the return value looks like. Given the tool's simplicity, a more detailed description would be expected to fully complete the context.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters ('Text to escape or unescape' and 'Action: escape or unescape (default: escape)'), achieving 100% schema_description_coverage. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Escape or unescape HTML entities' uses specific verbs (escape/unescape) and identifies the resource (HTML entities), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like url_encode or string_escape. The scope is explicit and unambiguous.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as string_escape or url_encode. It merely states the functionality without any when-to-use or when-not-to-use context.

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