get_composition_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions that slot assignments come from CEM slot definitions, but does not state that the tool is read-only, has no side effects, or requires the library to be loaded. The description is adequate but lacks explicit safety or prerequisite information.

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 two sentences long, clear, and front-loaded. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the input constraints, behavior for single vs multiple tags, and the source of slot data. Minor gaps exist (e.g., handling of missing slot definitions), but overall it is sufficiently complete for effective use.

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 coverage is 100%, meaning parameters are described in the schema. The description adds value by explaining that slot assignments are drawn from CEM definitions and that a single tag yields a standalone example, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 specific verbs ('Generates a realistic HTML snippet') and identifies the resource ('composition of web components using slot definitions'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'check_composition' and 'get_component' by focusing on example generation and composition.

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 provides clear input constraints (1–4 tag names) and a special case (single tag returns standalone example). However, it does not specify when to use this tool over alternatives like 'check_composition' or 'get_component', nor does it mention prerequisites such as loading the library.

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