get_snippet

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it does add a genuinely useful trait: every quickstart was executed against the package source at catalog build time, so the output is verified and should be trusted verbatim. However, it says nothing about behavior for an unknown package name, whether the call is read-only, or what the response looks like beyond the three listed items.

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?

Two tight sentences: the payload is front-loaded, and the second sentence is a trust/provenance note that directly prevents a common failure mode (the agent inventing an API). Nothing is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to enumerate the returned items (install line, import name, quickstart). But it leaves the framework parameter and the missing-package behavior entirely unaddressed, which is a material gap for a two-parameter tool.

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% for two parameters. The description clarifies 'package' as exactly one PQBlocks package, but the 'framework' parameter (default python) is never mentioned anywhere, so the agent has no idea it can request a non-Python quickstart. Only half the parameters are compensated for.

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?

It concretely defines what a 'snippet' is for this tool: install line, import name, and README quickstart for one named package. That is a specific resource with an enumerated payload, far better than restating the name. It never distinguishes itself from recommend_package or list_packages, so sibling disambiguation is absent.

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?

'Use it as-is rather than guessing an API' implies the use case (getting started with a known package) but states no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to the alternatives. An agent must infer that list_packages is for discovery and this tool is for a package already chosen.

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