search_examples

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

The description provides no behavioral details beyond what the schema implies. It doesn't mention pagination, return format, or potential limitations. However, the output schema exists, and this is a read-only search tool, but the description adds no transparency about what happens on no results or the nature of results.

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 structured as a docstring with an Args section. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and each parameter gets a line. It's efficient but could be slightly more structured with a clearer primary description separated 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 output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. The tool is a search function with a query and optional filters, and the description covers the main usage. However, it lacks some context on what typical results look like or how to combine filters, but overall it's fairly 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?

The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining what each filter does and the acceptable language values. With 0% schema description coverage, it compensates by providing guidance on parameter usage, defaults, and constraints (max_results max 20).

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 it searches Toss official example code and READMEs, which is a specific verb-resource pair. It distinguishes from sibling tools like search_docs by focusing on examples and READMEs, and mentions the query keyword types (API, functions, features, code keywords).

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly exclude conditions, it clearly lists optional filters (example, language, max_results) with their meanings and defaults, giving context on when to use them. It falls short of naming sibling alternatives, but the context of use is reasonably clear.

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