x3dom_page

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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the tool's handling of two input formats (full X3D document vs raw nodes), extracting the <Scene> content or placing nodes inside <scene>. It also mentions the inclusion of CDN resources and boilderplate. It does not cover error handling, but for a page-generation tool, the provided behavior is adequate.

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 with a clear opening sentence and a bullet-like Args section. The X3DOM background sentence adds useful context but is somewhat redundant. Overall, it is appropriately sized and organized without excessive verbosity.

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 description covers the tool's purpose, input handling, and all parameter semantics. An output schema exists, so the lack of return-value explanation is acceptable. It omits edge-case behavior and doesn't differentiate from closely named siblings, but for a tool with six parameters, it is quite thorough.

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 schema provides only titles and defaults (0% coverage), so the description's Args section is essential. It explains each parameter meaningfully, including the dual-mode behavior of x3d_content and gives concrete examples for width/height (e.g., '800px', '100%'), which goes well 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 starts with a specific, action-oriented sentence: 'Wrap X3D scene content in a complete X3DOM HTML page.' It clearly identifies the tool's function and output, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on validation, searching, or node manipulation.

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 to use the tool—when you need to render X3D in a browser with HTML boilerplate and CDN includes. It does not explicitly contrast this with alternatives like x3dom_starter or x3d_scene_template, but the intended use case is evident.

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