quickshell_get_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It clearly indicates a read operation ('read one file') and notes content is returned verbatim. It also hints at the dependency on list_examples for path validity. Missing details like error handling or output format are mitigated by the presence of an output schema, so the description covers the essential behavior well.

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?

Two sentences with zero redundancy. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by a clear directive on obtaining inputs and a recommendation. Every word earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with an output schema defined, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, input sourcing, and usage preference. It omits explicit error scenarios, but these are likely standard and not required for a straightforward get operation. The combination of description, schema, and output schema suffices for correct invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It provides indirect but effective guidance: the 'path' should be a valid path obtained from quickshell_list_examples. This tells the agent how to find permissible values, which is highly useful. It doesn't detail path format or constraints, but the reference to the list tool is a strong semantic anchor.

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 a specific verb ('read') and resource ('official Quickshell examples repo') and clarifies it returns file content verbatim (QML configs, READMEs). It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning quickshell_list_examples as the source of valid paths, so an agent can tell this is the getter for example files rather than guide pages or types.

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?

Explicitly instructs to first call quickshell_list_examples to obtain valid paths, and recommends preferring these maintained examples over writing config from memory. This gives clear when and how to use the tool, and implies when not to (avoid writing from memory). It fully covers usage context without requiring inference.

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