check_html

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does so well: it discloses CI/PostToolUse parity, the exact rule categories run, the html-vs-jsx behavioral split, and that coverage info is always returned. It omits failure modes or output detail beyond coverage, but for a pure lint operation the disclosed context is substantial.

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 sentences, all load-bearing: scope, when-to-use, and return-value caveat. The self-verification instruction is front-loaded and nothing is redundant.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by stating the response always includes coverage info and that manual rules cannot be auto-checked. Timing, scope, and return expectations are all present; only deeper output structure is left unspecified.

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 100% and the sourceType enum is already described in the schema. The description's mention of composition rules for HTML corroborates but does not extend the sourceType semantics, so the baseline 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 (lint), resource (full HTML/JSX source), and the rule system it validates against (melta-ui rules). It further scopes what is checked (class rules, html-attr rules, composition), which separates it from siblings like check_rule and get_rules.

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?

"Use this AFTER generating UI code to self-verify before presenting it" gives explicit timing and intent, which is real guidance. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it (e.g., single-rule checks via check_rule), so it falls short of a 5.

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