Get framework install instructions

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 the useful detail that it returns exact snippet/file/placement/code, but it does not clarify behavior when neither apiKey nor projectId is provided, or whether one of them is required despite only framework being marked required in the schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core output terms (snippet, target file, placement, framework-specific code). It is concise and informative, though it could be slightly clearer about the apiKey/projectId fallback behavior.

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 read-only retrieval tool with no output schema, the description communicates the main purpose and result content. It does not specify what happens if only framework is provided without an apiKey or projectId, nor does it mention whether the result is language-specific or how to handle multiple matches. The absence of output schema increases the burden on the description, which is only partially met.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds that the parameters refer to an existing API key or project, reinforcing the relationship between apiKey/projectId and the returned snippet, but does not add new semantics beyond the schema.

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 ('Return') and names the exact resources and outputs: tracking snippet, target file, placement, and framework-specific code. It clearly identifies the tool as retrieving install instructions for an existing Clarvivo API key or project, distinguishing it from sibling tools like verify_installation or list_projects.

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 this is the tool to get framework-specific installation details, and the sibling names suggest alternatives like verify_installation for post-install checks. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing either apiKey or projectId to exist beforehand.

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