Generate code sample

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the output (snippet with URL, headers, etc.) but does not disclose if the tool is read-only, any authentication requirements, or rate limits. The term 'ready-to-adapt' hints at a template, but no explicit behavioral traits.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and features. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.

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 two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool generates and its inputs. It could specify the output format (e.g., returns a string snippet) but the implied output is clear. Missing explicit mention of return value structure, but not critical for a code generator.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal extra meaning. It mentions the default language (curl) which is not in the schema, providing slight additional context beyond the operationId and language descriptions already present in the schema.

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 that it generates a ready-to-adapt request snippet for an endpoint, specifying the components (URL, headers, placeholders, example body). This distinguishes it from sibling tools which are for retrieving or searching endpoints, not generating samples.

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 implies usage for generating code samples and mentions language choice, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives like get_endpoint or search_endpoints. It lacks guidance on when to generate vs. retrieve endpoint information.

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