text_filter

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It mentions core filtering actions but is ambiguous about whether script/style content is fully removed or just tags, and does not explain edge cases like malformed HTML. The description also contradicts the schema's default value: it states '默认空格' (default space) while schema default is empty string, adding confusion.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the primary action and lists options. It earns its place without fluff, though the compactness contributes to some ambiguity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description should cover defaults, edge cases, and return behavior. It addresses primary functionality but leaves gaps such as whether content inside script/style is stripped, how replacement applies, and what the output looks like. Overall, it is minimally adequate.

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 coverage is high (67%) for keep_tags and replace_with, and the description reinforces their meanings. However, the html parameter lacks a schema description and the description does not elaborate on expected format. The default value contradiction between description and schema further detracts from semantic clarity.

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 filters HTML tags, specifically removing script/style and tags, with optional keep and replace behaviors. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like text_replace or data_html_convert.

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 implies usage for HTML tag sanitization but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like text_replace or regex_tool. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, leaving usage inference to the agent.

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