get_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only fetch of bundled content, but says nothing about behavior when the name doesn't match a bundled example (error vs. empty), or whether the returned source is the raw bundled file.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and the scope of the return value come first.

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?

The output schema covers the return shape and the tool is a simple single-parameter read, so much of the burden is lifted. Still missing is how to discover valid names and the failure mode for an unknown name — key gaps for the only input.

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% and the single parameter 'name' is undocumented in the schema, so the description must compensate. It only implies the name is that of a bundled example, without stating where valid names come from or whether matching is case-sensitive.

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 the full EisenScript source of a bundled example by name.' This clearly separates it from list_examples (enumeration) and eisenscript_reference (documentation), though it 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?

Usage is only implied: 'by name' hints that a name must be known beforehand, but the description never says to call list_examples first, nor does it name any alternative tool. An agent must infer the workflow.

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