html_strip

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses the two core operations (tag removal and entity decoding), and the schema adds the line-break default. However, it says nothing about handling of embedded script/style content or malformed markup. For a stateless pure-text transform with no auth or destructive concerns, the lighter burden makes a 3 reasonable.

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?

A single tight sentence with the effect front-loaded and zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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, side-effect-free text transformation with no output schema, the description covers the input handling and states the return concept ('plain text'). Only minor edge-case behavior around non-text block content is left unaddressed.

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%, so both parameters — including the preserve_line_breaks default — are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Strip HTML tags') plus the transformation outcome ('decode entities to plain text'). An agent immediately knows exactly what this tool does and can distinguish it from adjacent text utilities like markdown_to_html or text_transform.

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?

Usage is implied by the transformation itself — call it when you have HTML and want plain text — but there is no explicit when/when-not statement and no mention of alternatives such as markdown_to_html. Adequate but with a clear gap.

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