get_fastapi_example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true (safe read) and openWorldHint=true (results vary). The description adds the key behavioral trait that the tool returns only code examples and no prose, which is beyond the annotations and provides useful context to the agent.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the key purpose and constraint. No extraneous words or repetition. 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?

Given the tool has only one parameter, high schema coverage, no output schema, and simple behavior, the description is complete. It tells the agent exactly what to expect (code examples, no prose) and provides typical topic examples.

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 explains the 'topic' parameter. The description adds example values ('cors', 'jwt', 'websockets') but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the verb 'Get', the resource 'code examples', and the constraint 'no prose'. It also specifies the domain 'FastAPI topic'. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_fastapi_docs which would include prose.

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 when to use (when only code examples are needed, not prose) but does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives. The sibling tools provide context but the description alone gives no direct guidance.

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