Always-fresh embed snippets

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation by stating 'pure string generation — no network, no render' and explaining exactly where data comes from (origin remote, directory basename). This gives the agent a precise mental model of side-effect-free behavior and data provenance.

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 three sentences with no filler: it front-loads the primary output and key constraints, includes the data-source explanation, and points to docs for further detail. Every sentence earns its place.

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 the output schema is present (so return values are documented), the description covers behavior, data sources, and the related CI workflow. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to select and invoke this tool correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantics by clarifying how parameters are used: owner/repo are derived from the repo's origin remote and the demo name from the directory basename. This connects the dir and repo parameters to their actual role in generating the snippets.

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 output ('ready-to-paste embed snippets') with concrete formats (markdown GIF, markdown still, HTML video) and explicitly clarifies it is pure string generation, not rendering. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling media-generation tools like render, gif, and stills.

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: use it to produce embed snippets with stable raw.githubusercontent URLs, and pair it with the demo-publish workflow. It does not explicitly list when-not-to-use alternatives, but the emphasis on 'no network, no render' helps an agent infer that media generation tools are the alternative.

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