titan_get_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the file is large (1205 lines) and advises requesting sections, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe side effects, auth requirements, or return format. For a read-only get, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, packed with relevant info: content type, size, patterns, and parameter tip. No fluff, front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it returns and how to handle the large size. Minor gaps: doesn't specify output format or relationship to sibling 'template' tools, but overall sufficient.

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% for the single 'section' parameter, which already explains its allowed values and default. The description adds only a generic mention of 'section' without repeating specifics, so it contributes little beyond schema.

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 provides a full Holy Paladin rotation (1205 lines) as a reference of patterns, naming specific content (settings, enum policies, spender queue, dispel). This distinguishes it from siblings like titan_list_specs or titan_get_template by specifying the exact example content, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives. The description implies use for reference patterns but provides no exclusions or alternative tool mentions, leaving the agent to infer. The section parameter advice is operational, not usage context.

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