get_naming_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. 'Render' implies a non-mutating, read-only operation and the context is clear, but the description does not explicitly state that nothing is changed or describe the exact shape of the returned examples.

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 short sentences, front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence, and adds a practical usage note in the second. Every word earns its place 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?

For a parameterless, low-complexity tool, the description conveys purpose, behavior, and usage context in just two sentences. It could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but the tool is simple enough that the description is largely 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema confirms this with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The description's reference to the 'current naming configuration' provides relevant context beyond the empty schema.

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 'Render[s] example file and folder names' for the current naming configuration. This specific verb and resource distinguish it from siblings like get_rename_preview, which concerns previewing a rename operation rather than generating 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 description explicitly says to use it to 'sanity-check a naming format before adopting it,' providing clear context for when it is appropriate. It does not mention alternative tools or when not to use it, but the use case is unambiguous.

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