analyze_html

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by stating the engine, WCAG version, and screen size, but it does not disclose output format, potential side effects, or whether data is sent externally. This partial transparency is not fully sufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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 extremely concise: one clear sentence plus a compact bracket with key settings. Every piece of information is useful and there is no fluff. It is well-structured 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 the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema), the description lacks crucial information about the return value or how results are delivered. It also does not clarify when to use analyze_html vs analyze_html_json. The missing output format and usage guidance make the description incomplete for an agent to reliably use the tool.

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%, with all three parameters well-documented. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only hinting at default engine settings in the bracket, which is somewhat redundant with the schema's 'defaults to server config' note. No meaningful additional semantics are provided.

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 runs accessibility tests on raw HTML content, specifying the action and resource. It distinguishes from analyze_url by mentioning 'raw HTML content' but does not explicitly differentiate from analyze_html_json, which likely has the same input but different output format.

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 explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus siblings like analyze_url or analyze_html_json. The only implied indication is 'raw HTML content,' but without explicit exclusions or alternative recommendations, the agent is left to infer usage.

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