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

Discloses paging behavior (~32KB sections, more:true header, offset usage), default values, and read-only nature. The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent, and the description adds details about response structure and best practices.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage, paging, and file selection. No redundant phrases; structure flows logically from what to do to how to page.

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 tool's complexity (enums, paging, multiple files), the description covers all necessary aspects: how to list archetypes, select one, fetch a file, and paginate. It even explains how to interpret the header, leaving no ambiguity.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters with enums and meanings. The description enriches these by explaining the default 'index', how file= narrows output, and how offset/max_bytes control paging, adding practical context.

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 tool fetches a complete production-quality reference app for copying patterns, listing specific files and archetypes. It distinguishes itself from sibling build_* tools by focusing on example retrieval.

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 instructs to use archetype='index' to list options, pick the closest app, fetch BEFORE authoring UI, use file= for single files, and handle paging with offset. Provides actionable steps and warns against re-fetching from 0.

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