get_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output format ('complete, working code snippets with full context including explanations, source documentation, and metadata'), which is helpful. However, it lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs, leaving gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first defines the tool's purpose and output, the second provides usage guidelines. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, output format, and usage context. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error handling or performance, which would be beneficial for a tool returning code examples.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as examples for 'topic' or details on 'limit' behavior. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 with specific verbs ('Get code examples') and resources ('Minecraft modding topics'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'explain_fabric_concept' (conceptual explanations) and 'search_fabric_docs' (documentation search). It explicitly mentions the output format ('complete, working code snippets with full context').

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 explicit usage guidance with 'Use this when you need concrete code examples for implementing features,' clearly indicating when to choose this tool over alternatives. It differentiates from siblings by focusing on practical code rather than conceptual explanations or general documentation.

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