get_example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that the return is the full source of a Valve-written example; it says nothing about errors for unknown names or how the game parameter affects resolution.

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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence is advisory rather than descriptive, which slightly dilutes structure but still earns its place as guidance.

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?

With a complete output schema, full annotation coverage, and a two-parameter schema, the description covers what an agent needs to invoke it. Only the relationship to list_examples and failure behavior are left implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both 'game' (enum-like list of ids) and 'name' (with a format example) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline of 3.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Get the full source of an example script'), which is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling list_examples, but 'full source' versus a listing is implicitly clear.

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?

'Prefer adapting these Valve-written patterns' hints at the intended use (using examples as reference material), but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative such as list_examples for discovery.

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