ms_find_code_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Find' implies a read-only operation, but it does not explicitly state whether it modifies anything, whether it requires an installation, or what it returns. The description lacks necessary behavioral context beyond the verb.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise and grammatically direct, earning its place. While it could benefit from more detail, the conciseness dimension rewards efficiency, and this description is appropriately brief.

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 tool with two parameters and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not clarify the scope of 'local' (e.g., installed files), how results are presented, or how this tool relates to sibling example-listing tools. The output schema mitigates some need for return value details, but critical usage context remains missing.

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 0%, and the description adds almost no meaning to the parameters. It references 'query' generically but does not explain the expected format, how 'max_results' affects output, or any semantics beyond the schema's bare type/default. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 action ('Find') and resource ('local Materials Studio scripting code examples'), with scope ('relevant to a query'). While it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like ms_list_example_documents or ms_search_local_help, the resource type is specific enough to infer its distinct purpose.

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 phrase 'relevant to a query' implies this tool is for query-based retrieval, suggesting usage when a user has a specific need. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives, nor any exclusion criteria or references to sibling tools.

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