Text-Toolkit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Format and beautify HTML' implies a read-only transformation, but it doesn't specify whether it modifies the input, handles errors, or has any side effects like rate limits or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with parameters.

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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loading the core purpose without any wasted text. It efficiently communicates the tool's function in a minimal format.

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 tool has 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameter usage, return values, and behavioral traits, making it inadequate for an agent to reliably invoke this tool without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'HTML' which relates to the 'text' parameter, but doesn't explain what 'text' should contain or the purpose of 'indent_size'. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's basic types.

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 'Format and beautify HTML' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('format and beautify') and resource ('HTML'). It distinguishes from most siblings that handle text transformation, encoding, or generation, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'format_json' or 'format_xml' which are similar formatting tools.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to prefer it over other formatting tools like 'format_json' or 'format_xml', nor does it specify prerequisites such as input requirements or typical use cases.

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