get_code_sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation徒 and the pre-fill mention adds behavioral context, but the description does not explicitly state that no resources are modified, whether authentication is required, or what side effects (if any) occur.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the optional behavior mentioned second. Every sentence earns its place.

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 tool has no output schema, so the return value format (e.g., snippet text, file, instructions) is left unspecified. The schema adequately covers parameter choices via enums and descriptions, but the interplay between flow and step, and the shape of the returned code sample, are not explained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description's phrase 'pre-fill with your app credentials' adds a bit of meaning to appId, but the schema already documents that param as 'Optional application ID to pre-fill in the code sample.' No additional semantic value is provided for flow, step, or language.

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 retrieves integration code samples for AgeKey, with 'Get' as a specific verb and 'code samples' as the resource. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_applications or get_credentials, which target different resources. It doesn't explicitly mention the flow/step dimensions, but the schema covers those.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives are named. The only contextual cue is 'Optionally pre-fill with your app credentials,' which hints at the appId param but does not explain when this tool should be selected over siblings.

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