getAppProvisionExample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets an example,' without mentioning side effects (though likely none), return format details, or any operational implications. This is a minimal disclosure for a getter 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?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every word earns its place, and the sentence is both concise and informative.

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, parameterless tool with an output schema, the description is adequately complete. It states exactly what is returned (a GitHub Action example for provisioning an app) and needs no further elaboration given the low complexity and presence of an output 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline score is 4. The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids inventing unnecessary details.

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 uses a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('example of a GitHub Action for provisioning an app'), making the tool's purpose immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from sibling example tools by explicitly naming the app provisioning domain, unlike getDatabaseProvisionExample or getAppDeprovisionExample.

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 implied usage is straightforward: use this tool when you need an example of a GitHub Action for provisioning an app. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like configure or deprovision examples, leaving the distinction to the reader.

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