get_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that cell outputs are omitted by default and that notebooks track the current release, which is real behavioral context. It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or failure modes (e.g. unknown example name), leaving gaps for a tool of this kind.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded, the usage rationale follows in one sentence, and the parameter list is compact with no redundant restatement. Slightly verbose in the usage sentence but nothing that fails to earn its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description still adds the markdown/runnable-cell shape and the output-omission default. Parameter coverage is complete despite 0% schema coverage, so an agent can invoke this correctly without opening the schema.

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 compensate, and it does: all six parameters are explained, including the `name` example format ('notebooks/FirstQuantumLayers'), the `library` values ('merlin' default or 'perceval'), version override, and offset/limit semantics. Only minor syntax details (e.g. valid version strings) are absent.

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 ('Read an example notebook') plus the rendering format ('as markdown with runnable code cells'), which separates it from the doc/api reading siblings. It also names list_examples as the source of valid `name` values, but it does not explicitly contrast itself with get_doc_page, which is the nearest ambiguous sibling.

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?

'This is the fastest way to get correct, working code: the notebooks are maintained against the current release' gives a clear reason to prefer this tool over prose docs. There is no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it stops short of a 5.

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