get_control_example

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 is a customizable JSON config and describes parameters, but lacks details on error handling (e.g., what happens if control_id or name not found) or output format specifics, though an output schema exists.

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 compact and well-structured: purpose first, followed by a usage tip, then parameter details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

The description is fairly complete given the tool's simplicity (2 parameters, output schema exists). It explains the intended workflow (copy, tweak, place) and parameter behavior. Minor lack of error handling details, but overall sufficient.

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 0%, but the description adds significant meaning: control_id is a control type or node-id, name supports prefix match and case-insensitive matching, and omitting name returns the first example. This compensates well for the missing schema descriptions.

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 gets a ready-to-customize JSON config for a documented control example. It distinguishes from siblings like list_control_examples (lists) and insert_example (inserts into buffer) by using specific verbs and mentioning the alternative.

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 explicitly mentions when to use insert_example as an alternative for placing the config into the working buffer. It provides clear context for use but does not exhaustively list all sibling alternatives or when not to use the tool.

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