get_threejs_recipe

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses what the recipe includes (when-to-use, ready-to-paste code, expert notes), the code version constraint (r160+, ESM), and the supported ids, which gives the agent a clear expectation of the response contents.

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?

A single sentence packs purpose, response contents, version constraint, and all known ids with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is returned and lists valid inputs. It stops short of specifying the exact response format (e.g., JSON vs. Markdown), but an agent can invoke the tool correctly without that 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 already documents the id parameter with an example, and schema coverage is 100%. The description adds value by enumerating the valid recipe ids, making correct invocation easier without needing an external lookup.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Get one full Three.js / WebGL recipe by id') and differentiates itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing single-item retrieval. The included recipe ID list further disambiguates the tool's exact scope.

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 the usage pattern: call this when you have a specific recipe id. However, it never explicitly contrasts with list_threejs_recipes or says what to do when the id is unknown, so the selection guidance is only implied rather than stated.

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