anylogic_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a search/read operation through the verb "Busca" and explains the limit parameter, but says nothing about matching semantics, result ordering, coverage of tutorials, or safety/rate-limit behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 short and front-loaded: the purpose is stated first, followed by clear argument notes. There is little waste, though the Args section could be slightly more formal in structure.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both parameters are covered. However, for a search tool in a family of sibling search tools, the description lacks crucial routing context: exactly what content corpus it searches and how that differs from anylogic_search or anylogic_api_search.

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, and it does reasonably well: query is explained as a concept or API with concrete examples like "resource pool animation" and "statechart transition," and limit is described as the maximum number of results. It adds meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter names.

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?

States a specific verb ("Busca") and resource ("ejemplos y fragmentos de código en tutoriales y modelado avanzado"), making the tool's domain clear. It is distinguishable from generic sibling searches by its emphasis on examples and snippets, though it does not explicitly name the sibling tools it differs from.

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?

Usage is implied by the mention of tutorials and advanced modeling, suggesting it is for finding illustrative examples rather than general documentation. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of anylogic_search, anylogic_api_search, or anylogic_toc, and no exclusions are given.

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