find_plugin_examples

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions searching local files and returning a link, but it does not explain how 'relevant' is determined, whether this is a read-only operation, or any limitations. Lacks detail on side effects or return behavior beyond the basic action.

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 sentence that directly communicates the tool's core function with no filler. Every word earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for a simple search-and-return 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?

Given the tool's modest complexity and the presence of an output schema (which likely explains return values), the description is partially complete. However, it lacks guidance on parameter usage and when to choose this tool, making it adequate but with clear gaps in invocation context.

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. It implicitly references the 'query' parameter with the word 'relevant', but it does not describe the query parameter explicitly nor the max_results parameter at all. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's parameter names.

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 a specific verb ('find') and resource ('local ExileAPI C# examples'), and also mentions returning a catalogue link. This distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which focus on snapshots, scaffolding, and runtime status.

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 usage when you need relevant local examples and a catalogue link, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any exclusions. No alternative tools are named, though the sibling list suggests a clear niche.

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