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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: the return format (source), the default ordering (main one first), and the default scope (all examples when `example` is omitted). It does not state error behavior for an unknown item name or invalid slug, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

One dense sentence with the return shape front-loaded and the parameter rule after a semicolon; nothing is wasted. The closing restatement 'main is the main example' is slightly redundant with the opening ordering claim.

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 two-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation read tool this covers the essentials: what is returned, how it is ordered, and how to narrow to a single example. The main residual gap is what 'source' concretely means (raw SFC text vs. extracted block) and behavior on a missing item.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the harder parameter: `example` is explained as a slug derived from the example filename (`sale` for `price.sale.example.vue`) with `main` singled out. The required `name` parameter is only implied by 'a Frontic UI item's', so one parameter remains under-explained.

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 and resource: return a Frontic UI item's examples as source code. This is clearly distinct from get_item_docs (documentation) and search_registry_items (search), though the description never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

It gives a clear condition for the optional parameter (pass `example` for one alone, omit for all), which implies the two usage modes. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over get_item_docs or search_registry_items, leaving sibling selection to inference.

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