get_embed_snippet

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Pure local generation — no API key, no network', indicating the tool is offline and non-destructive. It also discloses the output (HTML snippet plus AJAX example), which is substantial for a codegen tool.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: the first sentence defines the deliverable, the second specifies local execution and input format. No filler.

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 snippet generator without an output schema, the description covers the key aspects: deliverable, local execution, and accepted input. It does not detail validation or exact string representation, but these are not critical for the tool's simplicity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description reiterates the endpoint_or_hash accepted formats but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parenthetical. The fields parameter is left to the schema, which already provides a default.

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 opens with 'Build a ready-to-paste HTML form snippet', which is a specific verb and deliverable. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling CRUD tools by emphasizing 'Pure local generation — no API key, no network.'

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 establishes the use case for generating an embed snippet for an existing FormsList endpoint. It provides input guidance ('Pass either the full endpoint URL... or just the form hash') but does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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