get_example_module

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Fetch' weakly implies a read-only operation, but nothing is said about potential side effects, latency, dependencies between parameters, response format, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence is efficiently written and contains no filler. It is appropriately sized relative to the tool's simplicity, though the lack of any additional context makes it feel under-specified rather than intentionally concise.

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 three optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives, what 'example code' entails, or how the examples relate to the parameters, but it does not. This is adequate for a trivial tool but incomplete for a real integration in a code-generation suite.

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%, so the parameters' meanings are already provided in the schema. The description adds no additional semantic nuance about feature, pattern, or moduleId beyond what the schema gives. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does all the heavy lifting.

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 'Fetch example code from existing modules' names a specific verb and resource, clearly identifying it as a retrieval tool for code examples. It distinguishes itself from the sibling generator tools (generate_module, generate_entity, etc.) by emphasizing 'existing modules' rather than creation, though it does not explicitly name any sibling.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 21 siblings covering generation, validation, and analysis, an agent would need explicit direction about when to fetch examples but gets none.

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