get_expo_examples

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does mention 'using Gemini AI', which hints at generated content and potential non-determinism, but it does not describe the output format, any rate limits, or possible inaccuracies. This is adequate but not rich.

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 a single, concise sentence that front-loads the main action and object. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, with no wasted effort.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple tool with only two parameters, but the absence of an output schema means it should clarify what a successful response looks like. It does not specify the structure or format of the returned code examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 schema already has 100% coverage, describing both 'component' and 'complexity' clearly. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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: to get code examples for specific Expo components or APIs. It includes a specific verb (get) and resource (code examples) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_expo_docs and explain_expo_concept by focusing on example code.

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 implies that this tool is for obtaining code examples, which is a clear context of use. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions, so it misses the full 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would make it a 5.

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