find_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 of behavioral disclosure. It does communicate that results are verified and framework-specific, which is useful selection behavior, but it does not describe the return shape, result ordering, fallback behavior, or what fields each example contains. For a read-only lookup this is adequate but not thorough.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every component earns its place: the resource type ('code examples'), the qualifiers ('verified, framework-specific'), and the search dimensions.

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?

With all five parameters fully documented in the schema and one simple required parameter, invocation mechanics are clear. However, the lack of annotations, output schema, or sibling-routing guidance leaves a moderate gap: the agent does not know what a returned example looks like or when to choose this tool over find_recipe or search_docs.

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 parameters are already individually documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter semantics; it merely restates that searches happen by task, language, framework, or target API, which the schema already captures.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Find ... code examples') and adds useful qualifiers ('verified, framework-specific'), so the agent can tell this returns sample code rather than documentation or API references. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like find_recipe or find_api, so it falls just short of a 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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over search_docs, find_recipe, find_api, or get_doc, and no exclusion criteria are stated. The filter list implies a search use case, but the agent must infer when this tool is the right choice among many similar siblings.

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