get_code_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's action and available task values, but does not mention response format, error handling for unsupported tasks, or any limitations. For a read-only retrieval tool, this is minimal disclosure.

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 extremely concise: one sentence plus a list. It front-loads the core action and immediately follows with the list of supported tasks. There is no redundant or filler content, and every part adds value.

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 a single parameter and no output schema, the description covers the tool's core purpose and supported tasks adequately. However, it omits details about the return type or structure of the code example, and does not discuss behavior when an invalid task is provided. This leaves some gaps for a tool operating without annotations.

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?

The input schema describes the 'task' parameter generically with examples, but the tool description adds a comprehensive enumeration of valid task keywords (send-message, webhook-setup, etc.). This supplements the schema's coverage and helps the agent select a valid value, exceeding the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 purpose: getting a code example (Получить пример кода) for a typical MAX Bot API task. It enumerates eight supported tasks, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint or get_guide. However, it does not explicitly reference alternatives, so it falls slightly short of a perfect score.

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: if one of the listed tasks matches your need, use this tool. It lists valid task keywords but does not explicitly state when to use this instead of other documentation tools, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The usage guidance is present but implicit.

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