data_html_convert

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context: ubb supports bidirectional conversion, and direction=to_html changes the input semantics of the 'html' parameter. However, it omits details about output format, lossiness, or behavior for other targets with to_html, leaving 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?

The description is one concise sentence that starts with the core purpose and then packs the necessary target/direction details. No wasted words, and it front-loads the most important information.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential operation and target list but does not describe return values, error cases, defaults (other than direction), or examples. It is adequate but leaves a moderate gap for a simple conversion 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 only 33%, and the description partially compensates by listing target options and clarifying UBB's direction behavior. Yet much of this repeats what's already in enums, and the tool description doesn't deeply explain the meaning of each target or the direction parameter beyond what the schema shows.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'HTML 与其他代码/标记格式互转' (convert HTML to/from other code/markup formats). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact conversion target list (js/php/cs/jsp/asp/perl/ubb/markdown) and clarifying the unique bidirectional UBB support.

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 target options and note about UBB direction, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like data_html_table or text_format. It does not mention when not to use it or any exclusions.

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