get_example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable context beyond this: it specifies that the tool fetches from GitHub and returns all source files, and emphasizes the importance of examples as primary references. There is no contradiction with annotations, and the description enhances understanding of the tool's behavior without repeating structured data.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose, followed by a sentence on return value, and a final sentence providing usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no output schema) and rich annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), the description is largely complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context. However, it doesn't detail the return format (e.g., file structure or pagination), which could be useful since there's no output schema, leaving a minor gap.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters with descriptions and enums. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as syntax or format details. However, it implies filtering capabilities through 'Fetch the complete source code of a Web3Auth integration example,' which aligns with the schema but doesn't offer additional semantics.

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 specific action ('fetch the complete source code'), resource ('Web3Auth integration example from GitHub'), and scope ('all source files needed to understand how the integration works'). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings by stating 'Examples are the PRIMARY reference for integration patterns — always prefer example code over raw SDK source,' which differentiates it from get_sdk_reference.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'always prefer example code over raw SDK source' directly contrasts with get_sdk_reference. It also implies context by positioning examples as the primary reference for integration patterns, though it doesn't explicitly mention other siblings like get_doc or search_community.

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