credits_get_add_pattern

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Successfully clarifies this retrieves a code pattern/template rather than performing the actual credit mutation. However, lacks details on output format (language, structure) or whether snippet is framework-specific.

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?

Single, efficient sentence with no redundancy. 'Programmatically' is slightly implicit (given 'code snippet') but acceptable. Front-loads the action and resource clearly.

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?

Appropriate for a low-complexity, single-parameter tool with complete schema coverage. Sufficient for agent to understand it returns a pattern/snippet, though specifying output format (e.g., 'TypeScript example') would further help.

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 coverage is 100% with transactionType well-defined via enum values. Description mentions 'with a specific transaction type' which contextualizes the parameter but doesn't add syntactic or semantic details beyond the schema's enum list.

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 'Get' and resource 'code snippet for programmatically adding credits'. Implicitly distinguishes from sibling 'credits_get_deduction_pattern' by specifying 'adding' operation, though explicit differentiation would strengthen it.

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?

Provides implied context (use when implementing credit addition logic) but lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs 'credits_get_deduction_pattern' or 'credits_get_monetization_strategies', and doesn't state prerequisites.

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