convert_html

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It explains the tool returns a 'conversion context including component catalog, syntax reference, and design system tokens,' which suggests a read-only pure function. Yet it lacks details on side effects, prerequisites, or error conditions.

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 efficient, with a clear first sentence and an Args block that adds value beyond the schema. The phrase 'Provide HTML code and receive...' is slightly redundant but not wasteful.

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 the presence of an output schema and one simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete. It describes the output context (catalog, syntax reference, tokens) without needing to explain return values in detail.

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?

The schema only lists 'source_code' with a title, but the description adds 'The HTML/CSS source code to convert,' clarifying the expected input. For a single parameter, this is sufficient compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 'Convert raw HTML/CSS to Symbols.app DOMQL components' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like convert_react and convert_to_json by naming the target format.

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?

It instructs the user to 'Provide HTML code' and describes the output, which implies usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like convert_react or provide any exclusion criteria.

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