list_examples

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

With no annotations present, the description itself carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention side effects, read-only nature, output format, rate limits, or any behavior beyond the basic action. This is a significant gap for a tool that likely performs a read operation.

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 concise and well-structured, with a clear statement of purpose and a separate section for arguments. It contains no unnecessary fluff, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description is the sole source of context. It lacks details about the expected output structure, the meaning of 'searchable', or any hints about result size or pagination. This incompleteness could lead to incorrect assumptions by the agent.

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 description provides some semantic value for the parameter 'platform' by listing possible values (webview, react_native, server) and indicating it is optional, which is not present in the schema (0% coverage). However, it does not explain what each value signifies or how filtering affects the results, leaving partial ambiguity.

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 that the tool shows a list of searchable Apps in the official Toss examples, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_docs or list_sources. The verb 'shows' is appropriate, though the term 'Apps' is slightly vague.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as search_examples or list_sources. There is no mention of typical use cases, prerequisites, or scenarios where this tool is preferred, leaving the agent to infer.

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