ide_example

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the exact file set returned and implies a read-only operation via 'Return.' It does not explain error behavior for invalid names, but for a simple retrieval tool the provided detail is solid.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and then provides concrete detail in parentheses. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned and the structure of the example project. It lacks edge-case information like not-found handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

The schema has one required string parameter 'name' with no description. The tool description implies that 'name' identifies the example project, which is essential context. However, it does not specify allowed name formats or give examples, so it provides only partial compensation for the 0% schema coverage.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clearly defines the resource ('all files of one example project'), listing exact file patterns (main.ik, tests/*.rhai, devices/*.rhai, info.json, README). It distinguishes itself from siblings like ide_examples by emphasizing 'one example project' versus a list.

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 implies usage: when you need all files of a specific example project. It also frames the tool as a 'complete worked reference,' which suggests a learning/reference context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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