Get Fireplace HTML

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds behavioral context: returns self-contained HTML, modules loaded relative to origin, and optional inclusion of library source for self-hosting. 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 well-structured: a main sentence, a comparative sentence, and a clear argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 read-only tool with good annotations, the description explains the return type (self-contained HTML), dependencies, and embedding alternative. It doesn't specify response format but that's acceptable given no output schema; the information provided is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the `include_lib` purpose (self-hosting without dependencies) and clarifies that `slug` options come from `fireplace_list_styles`. This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 it returns the full self-contained HTML source for a fireplace, specifies the included ES modules, and distinguishes from the sibling `fireplace_get_embed_code` which provides an iframe snippet for embedding.

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?

Explicitly tells when to use this tool vs. `fireplace_get_embed_code` for embedding, and mentions the `include_lib` parameter for self-hosting. Could be more comprehensive about all siblings but effectively guides the most common alternative.

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