find_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description reveals only the directories searched (samples and example/) but gives no detail on return format, whether matches are ranked, what constitutes an 'example' (file? code snippet? directory entry?), or whether this is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a search tool with zero annotation support.

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?

One efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. No wasted words. However, the sentence is slightly under-specified, but that's more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. Structure is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.

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 simple search tool with only 2 params and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. Given 23 siblings covering similar search/find capabilities, the description should clarify what distinguishes examples from tests, best practices, docs, or general source search. Without annotations, no output schema, and minimal param explanation, more description is warranted to make the tool reliably selectable.

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 coverage is 50% with 2 params. The 'topic' parameter has a schema description ('Topic or symbol to find examples for') providing its meaning. The 'limit' parameter is described only by schema constraints (max 100, exclusive min 0) but no semantic description. The tool description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema. With 50% coverage, description partially compensates but doesn't fully explain param behavior.

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 states it finds examples related to a topic from samples and example/ directories. It identifies the verb (find) and resource (examples) and adds scope information about directory locations. However, it doesn't distinguish clearly from siblings like search_source or find_best_practice, and the phrase 'samples and example/ directories' is somewhat ambiguous about scope.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 23 siblings including find_tests, find_best_practice, search_source, and search_docs, there's no differentiation offered. The agent is left to guess whether find_examples is for code examples, file examples, or documentation examples, and when to choose it over search_source or find_best_practice.

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