get_component_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful behavior: results are offset-paged, pagination metadata reflects the whole normalized source-derived set rather than just the page, and no external crawling occurs. It leaves unstated what happens with an unknown component, whether results are cached, or how the data is sourced/authored, so gaps remain for a read tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the pagination contract and a scope exclusion. Every sentence carries information, though the final negative sentence reads slightly awkwardly.

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 4-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description establishes the pagination contract well but omits what an 'implementation' record contains, how component relates to source_id, and how page size is controlled. Adequate as a minimum viable definition, but not self-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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must clarify all four parameters and only partially does: 'offset-based page' explains offset, and 'source component page' loosely ties to component. It never mentions source_id or the max_results page size, and gives no hint about accepted component identifier format or the 1-30 cap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: returns one page of implementations linked by a source component page. An agent can distinguish it from find_components (discovery) and compare_implementations (comparison), though the name/description mismatch between 'examples' and 'implementations' forces a small inference.

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 when-to-use guidance and no named alternatives among siblings like find_components or inspect_component_demo. The only scoping statement, 'Does not invent or crawl external implementation URLs,' constrains the data source rather than telling the agent when this tool is the right choice.

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