growsurf_client_snippets

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

Annotations already disclose that the tool is read-only and idempotent (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true). The description adds minimal behavioral context by noting it produces 'copy-pasteable' snippets and includes 'placement guidance', but it does not elaborate on output specifics or side effects. Given the annotations cover safety, the description provides only marginal additional transparency, warranting a mid-range score.

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 efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and scope, front-loading the action and resource. It avoids fluff but is slightly dense; however, it remains concise and clear. No redundant information is included, though it could be broken into two sentences for better readability.

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?

The tool has 8 parameters (all optional) and no schema parameter descriptions, and an output schema exists but its content is not provided. The high-level description contributes little to understanding the parameter functionality or the expected return structure. Without any explanation of how parameters control the output, the context is incomplete for an agent to use it effectively.

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% – none of the 8 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description does not explain any parameter such as `programType`, `singlePageApp`, `referralTrigger`, or the boolean toggles. With zero compensation for the missing schema documentation, an agent cannot determine how these parameters affect the generated snippets. This is a critical gap.

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 states a clear verb ('Generate') and a specific resource ('copy-pasteable client-side snippets for GrowSurf referral tracking, embeddable elements, and the GrowSurf Window (JS + CSS)') with placement guidance. It names the types of snippets and distinguishes itself from pure configuration tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling `growsurf_embeddable_element_snippet` which overlaps in 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 offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'placement guidance for app UI work' which implies a UI integration scenario, but it does not state exclusions or name sibling tools (e.g., `growsurf_embeddable_element_snippet`) that cover specialized cases. An agent would have to infer usage, which is not sufficient.

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