get_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get code examples', which is a read operation, but does not mention any caching, rate limits, error handling, result limits, or what happens if the topic is not found.

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 of 7 words, very concise and front-loaded with the key action. However, it may be overly minimal for a tool with three parameters and no output schema, slightly reducing the score.

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?

Despite having 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is very brief. It does not explain what the response contains (e.g., code snippets), whether it returns one or multiple examples, or how the filtering works. The context is incomplete for effective use.

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%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (topic, language, minecraft_version). The baseline for high coverage is 3, and the description does not exceed this.

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 'Get code examples for Forge modding topics' uses a specific verb (Get) and resource (code examples), and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_forge_docs (which likely searches docs) and explain_forge_concept (which explains concepts). The purpose is clear and specific.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when to prefer it over search_forge_docs or explain_forge_concept, or any context for using it.

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