get_example_file

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a query (조회), which implies read-only, and it specifies a maximum line range of 400 lines, which is a behavioral constraint. It does not mention errors, output structure, or authentication, but for a read operation the disclosed constraints are valuable.

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 brief and efficient, with a single purpose statement and a clear parameter list. Every sentence adds information about how to use the tool, and it is well-structured by separating the main description from Args.

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 complexity (line-range read with defaults and a max), the description covers all parameters and a key constraint (400-line max). An output schema exists, so return values are presumably defined there. The only gap is that it does not explicitly state what happens if line range exceeds file length or if path is invalid, but given the output schema presence, it is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains each parameter: 'path' is the relative repo path from search_examples, 'start_line' is inclusive 1-based, 'end_line' is inclusive, and the max of 400 lines total. This is beyond the raw schema and provides essential usage semantics.

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 states that the tool retrieves a specified line range from a selected official example file, which is a specific action on a specific resource. It is differentiated from siblings like search_examples because it specifically retrieves file content, not searches. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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 context in a Korean-language note stating '가입한 공식 예제 파일의 지정 줄 범위를 조회합니다.' and parameter descriptions, including that 'path' must be the relative path returned by search_examples, which signals a prerequisite. It lacks an explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the usage context is reasonably clear.

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