get_uitoolkit_code_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behaviors. It implies a read-only fetch operation but does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or lacks side effects. The description is adequate but not rich.

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 two concise sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and usage. There is no unnecessary information.

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 explains what the tool does and where it fetches examples from. However, it does not describe the format of the returned code examples or the response structure. Given the lack of an output schema, this is a minor gap.

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 schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for 'example_name'.

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 the tool fetches actual code examples from a specific repository (Unity's UI Toolkit manual code examples repo), making its purpose unambiguous. It differentiates from sibling tools by specifying the exact source.

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 a clear usage scenario ('retrieve real implementation samples showing UIToolkit syntax and usage patterns') but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives among the sibling tools.

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