get-nezo-code-example

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions returning code blocks filtered by language and includes security rules (e.g., do not embed keys in client code). However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether multiple matches are returned, or the exact output structure.

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 about five sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and clearly written. The security rules are relevant but slightly extend the length; still efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose, parameters, and security considerations. However, it does not describe the return format or behavior when no matching examples exist, leaving moderate gaps.

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% and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by listing the available languages (Java, C#, Node.js, Python, PHP) and mentioning the MAC guide document, which helps clarify valid values and context beyond 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 the tool looks up language-specific example code for NEZO notification payment service, with a verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'NEZO' scope, but does not explicitly differentiate from get-payment-code-example.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get-payment-code-example or get-docs. The description lacks any 'when to use' or 'when not to use' context.

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