Usage Examples / 使用示例

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the payload type (usage examples for embedding) and that examples are context-specific, but says nothing about the response format (code blocks vs prose), whether output is static, or any auth/rate considerations. Adequate but thin for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two front-loaded sentences that state purpose and scope with no filler. The bilingual duplication is mildly redundant but appears to be a service convention rather than padding.

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 simple, side-effect-free retrieval tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description conveys what is returned and the embedding contexts covered. Only the exact return shape (snippet format) is unspecified, 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 single optional assetId parameter is already fully documented in the schema, including the fallback-to-sample behavior. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get usage examples showing how to embed SciGlyph SVG assets') and names the concrete contexts (Markdown, HTML). It is clearly distinct from sibling retrieval tools like get_asset or get_url, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need embedding snippets. There is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance, no mention of how this differs from sciglyph_get_url or sciglyph_get_asset, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated.

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