find-examples

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only mentions 'using the index' without explaining what that means, what side effects (if any) exist, what triggers failures, or what the return format is. This is insufficient for a tool with 4 parameters.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately short for a simple tool, though it sacrifices helpful details for brevity.

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 the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the role of 'cwd', the 'auto' version default, what 'the index' refers to, or how results are structured. This is incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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 only 25% (only 'topic' is described). The description adds no parameter semantics at all—it doesn't explain 'library', 'version', 'cwd', or how they interact. With low schema coverage, the description was expected to compensate but fails to do so.

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 core function: 'Finds code examples for a specific topic using the index.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like search-docs or semantic-search-docs, and the phrase 'using the index' is vague.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives. With siblings like search-docs, get-library-docs, and semantic-search-docs, the description offers no distinctions, exclusions, or when-not-to-use advice.

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