getBuildDeployExample

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Gets an example' without clarifying whether this is a read-only operation, what the response format is, or any side effects. The verb 'Gets' implies non-destructive behavior, but the description does not explicitly confirm it or detail what the example includes.

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, clear sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It contains no filler, redundant information, or restatement of the tool name. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.

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 simplicity (no params, simple getter), the description is minimally sufficient. An output schema exists to document the return value, so the description need not explain it. However, it lacks any contextual detail about when this example would be useful or what 'GitHub Action' entails, leaving it adequate but not complete.

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, and the input schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate because the schema already fully covers the parameter space (none exist).

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 tool's function: 'Gets an example of a GitHub Action for building, publishing, and deploying an app.' The verb 'Gets' with a specific resource (an example of a GitHub Action) distinguishes it from sibling tools like getProcfileExample or getAptibleYamlExample, which target different example types.

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 context by specifying the purpose ('building, publishing, and deploying an app'), but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. No explicit 'when to use' or 'use instead' guidance is present, making it adequate but not fully explicit.

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