Scan pasted HTML for AI slop

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

The description adds real behavioral value by stating the output is the 'same report as slop_scan', which lets an agent reason about return shape without an output schema. However, it does not reconcile readOnlyHint=false with what is nominally a pure analysis operation, nor does it mention side effects, caching, or rate limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the disambiguation rule immediately after. No filler, no restating of the tool name.

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 four-parameter, single-required-input tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, input routing, and output equivalence with a sibling. The only mild gap is the absence of any note about how large an HTML payload can be handled or what the caller should do with the result.

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 url, html, lang, and label are all documented in the schema (including the enum default and the before/after pairing use of label). The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (scan raw HTML for AI slop) and scopes the input modality to pasted or self-generated HTML. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling slop_scan by naming which input types belong to each.

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?

Gives an explicit routing rule: use this tool for raw HTML, use slop_scan for URLs and folders. Both the 'when to use' and the named alternative are stated, leaving nothing to inference.

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