get_cookbook_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return content (README, file listing, source files) but does not explicitly state safety (read-only), permissions, or error behavior. It implies retrieval but lacks explicit behavioral notes.

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 concise and well-structured: two sentences plus a focused Args section. The purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place, with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers purpose, usage, parameter semantics, and return content. It lacks explicit note on side effects or error handling, but the output schema covers return structure. Given no annotations, a slightly more detailed behavioral note would push it to 5, but it is complete enough.

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 input schema provides no description for the 'name' parameter (0% coverage). The description compensates with an Args section that explains the parameter, gives concrete examples, and references list_cookbook_examples to discover valid values. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves a specific AT Protocol cookbook example by project name. This is a specific verb+resource combination and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_cookbook_examples, which lists all examples.

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 explicitly says 'Use this when you need implementation examples or starter code' and directs users to list_cookbook_examples for discovering available projects. This provides clear guidance on when to use this tool and an alternative.

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