get_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of bundled source, but it does not clarify permissions, error behavior for an unknown name, or what exactly is returned.

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 a single concise sentence with no wasted wording and front-loads the resource. It is appropriately brief, though brevity contributes to under-specification elsewhere.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description should clarify return content and name discovery. It mentions 'source' but does not explain whether that is code, a file path, or text, nor how to find valid example names.

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%, and the single required 'name' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description. The description does not explain that 'name' identifies a bundled example or how to discover valid names.

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 identifies the resource as the source of one bundled example and gives intended uses (read, copy, adapt), but it does not use a clear retrieval verb and does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like run_example or list_examples.

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 phrase 'to read, copy or adapt' implies when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit guidance on when to choose it over run_example, list_examples, or other siblings, and no prerequisites are stated.

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