parse_wechat_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuine behavioral trait, that this parses offline with no network access (implying a safe, side-effect-free read), which is real value. However it says nothing about output format handling, the format parameter's effect, or truncation behavior around max_chars, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 key scoping constraint (no network) front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity edges toward under-specification rather than ideal conciseness.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin. It omits format/truncation behavior and the role of the url and max_chars 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 description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only HTML in passing and gives no semantics for url, format, or max_chars (including their defaults of markdown and 40000).

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 pairs a specific verb ("Parse") with a specific resource ("a saved WeChat article page"), and the parenthetical "HTML you already have" plus "without network access" implicitly separates it from the network-fetching sibling fetch_wechat_article. It stops short of naming that sibling, so the differentiation is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

"HTML you already have" and "without network access" imply the condition for choosing this over a fetch tool, but the alternative is never named and there is no explicit when-not guidance. Usage is only implied, not stated.

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