Clerk

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits like return format (raw code vs. metadata), read-only safety, error handling for invalid slugs, or rate limits. The agent has no structured or descriptive signals about side effects.

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?

Extremely brief at six words with no redundancy. However, the brevity contributes to under-specification; while efficiently structured, it lacks necessary qualifying details about scope and behavior.

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 no output schema exists, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (snippet content, language, filename?). Additionally, it omits sibling differentiation critical for correct tool selection. Inadequate for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's contract.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the parameter 'slug' is fully documented in the schema with examples. The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline expectation when the schema is self-sufficient.

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 the basic action ('Get') and resource ('Clerk SDK code snippets'), but fails to distinguish from sibling tool 'list_clerk_sdk_snippets'. It does not clarify that this retrieves specific snippets by slug/bundle name versus listing available options.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus the 'list_clerk_sdk_snippets' alternative. Missing crucial context that this requires a known slug identifier, while the sibling is for browsing/discovery.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It mentions 'bundles' as part of the return, but fails to specify pagination behavior, authentication requirements, or what happens when the optional tag parameter is omitted (returns all items?).

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 consists of two efficient sentences with zero waste. The first front-loads the core purpose (listing), while the second immediately addresses the primary filtering capability. Every word 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 simple single-parameter schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's basic contract. However, it could improve by noting that the tag is optional or describing the default behavior when no filter is applied.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the input schema already comprehensively documents the tag parameter including examples. The description reinforces this with 'Filter by tag,' meeting the baseline expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly states the verb (List) and resource (Clerk SDK snippets and bundles). It implies scope by saying 'all available,' which somewhat distinguishes it from the singular sibling 'clerk_sdk_snippet,' though it doesn't explicitly contrast the two tools.

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 mentions filtering by tag to find specific functionality, providing basic usage context. However, it fails to explicitly state when to use this listing tool versus the sibling 'clerk_sdk_snippet' tool, leaving the agent to infer the distinction.

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