Get integration guide

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful runtime context beyond them: it works offline, falls back to a default port, and surfaces a serverRunning:false flag. This is exactly the kind of state-dependent behavior annotations cannot express.

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 outcome and artifact list, then the server-state caveat and the corrective action. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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?

With no output schema, the description volunteers the return contents (script tag, console snippet, bookmarklet, /inject URL, serverRunning flag) and the condition affecting them. An agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline applies; there is nothing to document. The description correctly adds no parameter chatter, keeping the text focused on behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (get) and resource (overlay/bookmarklet integration instructions) and enumerates the exact artifacts returned: script tag, console snippet, bookmarklet, /inject URL. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like export_prompt or start_kanban.

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 says it works whether or not the server is running, explains the degraded case (guide built against default port, serverRunning:false), and names the alternative to call first (start_kanban) to get real URLs. No inference required.

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