getEndpointProvisionExample

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 disclosing behavioral traits. It only says 'Gets an example,' which essentially restates the tool's name and does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what format the example takes, or any side effects. The minimal disclosure is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource. Every word is relevant, and there is no redundant or extraneous information.

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 (zero parameters, existence of an output schema), the description is largely complete. It states the core purpose, and the output schema is available to explain return values, so the description does not need to elaborate further. However, a bit more context about what an endpoint is in this system or the nature of the example would improve completeness.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameters. Per the calibration, a baseline of 4 applies for zero-parameter tools, and the description does not need to compensate since schema coverage is trivially complete.

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 retrieves an example of a GitHub Action for provisioning an endpoint. The verb 'gets' combined with the specific resource ('example of a GitHub Action for provisioning an endpoint') distinguishes it from sibling tools like getAppProvisionExample and getDatabaseProvisionExample, which target different resources.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but its purpose implies it should be used when an endpoint provisioning example is needed. There is no mention of alternatives or exclusions, leaving usage to be inferred from the resource type.

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