Gets the HTML embed code for a Riddle by its UUID. The code is returned regardless of publish state, but the URL it embeds will not serve the Riddle until it is published.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| UUID | Yes | The UUID of the Riddle you want to retrieve the HTML embed code for |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by disclosing the publish-state behavior — that the returned code is conditional in its serving capability. No contradiction between description and annotations.
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?
Two sentences front-load the core purpose ('Gets the HTML embed code for a Riddle by its UUID') and the second sentence adds critical behavioral nuance without any filler. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read operation with both annotations present and no output schema, the description is fully adequate. It states what is returned (HTML embed code), the input (UUID), and the key behavioral caveat (publish state). Nothing essential is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.
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 100% — the UUID parameter is fully documented in the schema as 'The UUID of the Riddle you want to retrieve the HTML embed code for'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail, which is acceptable since the schema carries the full burden. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') with a clear resource ('HTML embed code') and identifier ('UUID'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like riddle_get and riddle_publish. The function's narrow scope is immediately evident.
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 clear usage context through the publish-state caveat: the embed code is returned regardless of publish state, but won't serve the Riddle until published. This implicitly tells the agent when the result is actually useful. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but the narrow purpose makes the guidance clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Tools are largely distinct by name and detailed descriptions, with clear prefixes (riddle_builder_*, questionBank_*, stats_*). Some potential confusion exists among the stats tools (stats_fetch vs stats_overview_fetch vs breakdowns) but descriptions clarify their different scopes. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.
Naming follows a predictable prefix+verb pattern within each domain (e.g., riddle_builder_quiz, riddle_builder_poll; riddle_get, riddle_publish). Minor inconsistencies exist, like the camelCase 'questionBank' and 'riddleTemplate' prefixes vs snake_case elsewhere, and 'stats_overview_fetch' ordering, but these are not chaotic and remain readable.
With 62 tools, this far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and even the 25+ threshold. While the server covers a broad domain, the extreme number overwhelms and makes tool selection harder, fitting the 'extreme mismatch' criterion for 50+ tools.
The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering creation, reading, updating, deleting, publishing, unpublishing, moving, tagging, template management, question banks, palettes, and various stats breakdowns. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of managing interactive content, and all apparent operations are supported.