list_examples

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 discloses the read-only nature (browsing) and the return of IDs, but does not elaborate on potential side effects, rate limits, or the exact format of the list. It is adequate but not highly detailed.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and lists examples. It is concise but the list of examples is somewhat verbose; however, it provides useful context without being overly long. Minor room for improvement.

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 list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It explains the function and returns value, but lacks details on how IDs map to other tools or error cases. Given the complexity, it is acceptable but could be more thorough.

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 already describes the optional 'category' parameter with enum values and 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about the parameter, so it meets the baseline of 3 but does not exceed it.

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's purpose: 'Browse the built-in library of classic Turbo C programs'. It includes specific examples and mentions it returns IDs that can be run, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_example and compile_and_run.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_example or run_example. While the purpose is clear, there is no explicit 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context, which is needed given the variety of sibling tools.

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