get_example

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that .CKT files are plain SPICE while .CIR files contain extra schematic data (coordinates, analysis settings), which is meaningful behavioral context. It doesn't cover errors or permissions, but for a simple fetch operation this 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 exceptionally concise: two short sentences plus a focused note on file types. Every sentence earns its place, and the key purpose is 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description covers the important nuances: file format differences and how the output relates to simulate. It could mention naming conventions or examples, but it is adequately complete for an MCP tool of this scope.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate, but it never explicitly explains the 'name' parameter. It implies name selects a reference circuit but provides no details about valid values or where to obtain names (e.g., via search_examples).

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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one reference circuit's source text'), clearly identifying the tool's core function. It is distinguished from siblings like simulate_example and describe_example by emphasizing raw source text retrieval, especially the .CKT vs .CIR distinction.

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 gives clear context on when to use this tool: to obtain source text that can be fed to simulate (for .CKT) or to inspect Micro-Cap schematic data (for .CIR). It implies a workflow but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full 5.

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