get_sdk_methods

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

Annotations already establish that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that the tool returns code snippets scoped by endpoint and language, which is useful but does not detail output format, ordering, or behavior when all parameters are omitted. This is adequate but not richly transparent.

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 front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the following sentences provide actionable parameter guidance without redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.

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 relatively simple read-only tool with optional parameters and rich schema descriptions, the description covers the essential usage. It explains what the tool produces, how to narrow results, and where to obtain valid slug values. No critical guidance is missing.

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 already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent that the slug comes from list_endpoints and by giving concrete language examples (typescript, python, go), which helps correct invocation.

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 function: showing how to call the API via generated SDKs and providing ready-to-use code snippets per endpoint and language. It also references list_endpoints as the source of slugs, helping distinguish this tool from nearby siblings like get_endpoint or list_endpoints.

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 gives practical usage context: use the slug to focus on one endpoint and the language parameter to focus on one language, with examples. It does not explicitly describe when not to use this tool or contrast it with alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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