AxModelFitterLegacy_get_fitting_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that this is a read-only example retrieval tool (returns templates, no side effects mentioned), and it discloses the legacy status and removal timeline. However, it doesn't describe what the actual output format looks like (e.g., whether it returns code blocks, file paths, or text), nor does it mention any rate limits or auth requirements. The legacy context is valuable but the behavioral detail is thin.

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 well-structured with a clear legacy warning up front, followed by a concise list of what the examples include and a usage hint. The legacy notice is somewhat verbose (three sentences) but earns its place given the migration context. The bullet-style list is scannable. Minor redundancy: 'LEGACY TOOL' and 'legacy model fitter' repeat the same point.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the key context: what the tool returns, what the templates include, and how to use them. The migration guidance is complete with the alternative tool names and console script. The only gap is the lack of detail on the exact return format (e.g., are these code snippets returned as strings? file paths?), but given the simplicity of the tool, this is a minor omission.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description compensates by explaining what the returned examples contain (JAX syntax, pint units, parameter bounds, file-based data structures), which is the closest relevant semantic content. Baseline 4 for zero params is appropriate.

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 returns complete working examples for model fitting with the legacy model fitter, listing specific template types (exponential decay, polynomial, multivariate). It distinguishes itself from the new AxModelFitter server tools by explicitly labeling itself as LEGACY and naming the preferred alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like AxModelFitter_generate_code or AxModelFitterLegacy_fit_model, so it's not a perfect 5.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: existing workflows built on this toolset should continue to use it, while NEW workflows should prefer the new AxModelFitter server's generate_code/execute_code tools. It also names the console script `axiomatic-modelfitter` and warns about removal in the next major release. This is clear routing guidance with alternatives named.

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