get_spam_examples

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It provides useful behavioral context: returns exactly 5 most recent public examples and includes verdict, category, and a link to full analysis. It does not discuss auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a zero-parameter read tool this is adequate.

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 concise sentence, front-loaded with the action verb 'Get', and contains no filler or redundant information.

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?

Given 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is complete for its scope. It communicates the count (5), scope (most recent public), subject (spam/scam examples), and return content (verdict, category, link).

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 no parameters, so the schema defines nothing. The baseline for zero parameters is 4, and the description adds value by describing the output fields, which is more than enough for a parameterless tool.

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 the 5 most recent public spam/scam examples from the isitaspam.com classifier. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_spam_text (checks a text) and get_spam_stats (gets statistics) by focusing on example records.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for fetching example records, but it does not mention check_spam_text or get_spam_stats, or specify any prerequisites or exclusions.

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