get_component_examples

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, how many examples are returned, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The only behavioral trait mentioned is the Vue3 default, which is also in the schema. This is a significant gap for an unannotated read tool.

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 short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and notes the default version. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain what an 'example' is (code snippet, usage pattern, etc.), how many are returned, or how to interpret results. The agent is left with significant unknowns about the return value and application context.

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 schema already documents both parameters (vueVersion with description and default, componentName with description). The description repeats the Vue3 default but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does 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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get' + 'component usage examples' for a specific idux component. It distinguishes from siblings like get_component_details by retrieving examples rather than details. However, the scope is somewhat ambiguous: it's unclear whether it returns all examples or a single example, and how it relates to list_idux_components or search_components.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the default Vue3 version but doesn't say when to choose Vue2 or when this tool is preferable over get_component_details or search_components. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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