find_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits on its own. It only says what the tool finds, not what happens when called (return format, filtering, pagination, safety). For a search-type tool this leaves the agent without crucial insight into the response shape.

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?

Two concise sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides clear use-case guidance. No filler or redundant phrasing; the structure is efficient and front-loaded.

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?

The tool is relatively simple, and there is an output schema (though not shown). The description gives purpose and usage context, but with zero annotations and no parameter detail, it leaves gaps about result limits, error behavior, and how language relates to query. It is adequate but lacks full coverage for a 3-parameter tool.

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. It mentions 'topic and language', loosely mapping to query and language, but gives no detail on query syntax, accepted language values, or the meaning and effect of max_results. The parameter semantics remain largely inferable only from 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Find'), a resource ('code examples in the Iggy documentation'), and the two key dimensions ('topic and language'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_docs or get_doc, which are not example-specific.

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 explicitly lists when to use this tool: runnable examples, SDK examples, producer/consumer samples, Docker commands, or tutorial source material. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives, so it stops short of the full 5.

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