Get the Mira widget install snippet

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by explaining the publicKey requirement and the preview URL use case, which helps the agent understand expected behavior and preconditions without contradicting the 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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the prerequisite stated immediately after. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, where the snippet is inserted, the testing use case, and the required prerequisite. Nothing essential is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds relevant semantic context by referencing the webChat publicKey as a prerequisite, even though it is not an input parameter, clarifying that no additional arguments are needed.

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 specific verb ('Return'), a concrete resource ('embed snippet a website owner pastes before </body>'), and an additional deliverable ('preview URL'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_mira_settings or verify_widget_install by focusing on the installation snippet.

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 context for when the tool is useful, including testing a saved-but-disabled widget, and states the prerequisite webChat publicKey. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scenario is specific enough to guide selection.

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