get_code_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It describes the operation as retrieving curated examples, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'curated' entails (e.g., source, freshness). The return type is mentioned ('curated code examples with explanations'), but behavioral traits are partially missing.

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 paragraph with an Args list and a Returns line. It is relatively concise with no superfluous information, though the Returns line is somewhat redundant given the description. It is front-loaded with the purpose.

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 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers parameters well but lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'curated' means, error handling, or whether examples are cached). The return description is minimal ('curated code examples with explanations'). Some gaps remain for complete understanding.

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 provides all parameter documentation. It adds meaning by listing library, topic, language, version (with examples like '4.2' or 'stable'), and auto_detect_version with defaults. However, it does not explain allowed formats for library names or topic conventions, missing some semantic detail.

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 'Get curated code examples for a specific topic and library,' specifying both the action and the resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_docs' (documentation) and 'suggest_libraries' (library suggestions) by focusing on code examples.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. While implied from sibling names that this is for examples and 'get_docs' is for documentation, no direct guidance on exclusions or when not to use is provided.

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