Get Fireplace Embed Code

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context: the iframe points to a local server (configurable via FIREPLACE_SERVER_URL) and always includes a sponsor attribution comment. No contradictions.

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 concise and well-structured: a single clear sentence about purpose, followed by key behavioral notes and a bullet list of arguments. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff.

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?

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and annotations, the description is nearly complete. It explains the return format (iframe snippet), server URL configuration, and the sponsor attribution. It lacks details about error handling or edge cases, but covers the main behavioral expectations.

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 input schema covers 2 of 4 parameters with descriptions (slug and host). The description lists all parameters with brief explanations (e.g., width in px, default values) but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides. With 50% schema coverage, the description compensates only minimally.

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 clearly states the verb 'return' and the resource 'HTML <iframe> snippet for embedding a fireplace on any page'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like fireplace_get_html or fireplace_get_url by specifying it returns a turnkey embed 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 context for usage (embedding on any page) and mentions server URL configuration, but does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like fireplace_get_html or fireplace_get_url to guide when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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