apg_get_example

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description does not need to reiterate read-only behavior. The description adds that the output includes placeholders for binary assets, which is extra context but not deep behavioral insight. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the essential information.

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, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is reasonably complete. It states what the output contains (HTML, CSS, JS, placeholders). However, it could be more specific about the response format (e.g., structured files array vs. markdown blocks), which is partially covered by the format parameter description.

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 description does not add meaning beyond the input schema. Schema description coverage is 67% (patternId missing description); the tool description does not explain patternId. For format and exampleSlug, schema descriptions are adequate. Thus the description is neutral and does not compensate for gaps.

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 identifies the tool as providing example source code for an APG demo, specifying it includes HTML, CSS, JS, and binary placeholders. It distinguishes from siblings like apg_get_pattern (pattern metadata) and apg_list_patterns (listing patterns). However, it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'retrieve') and could be more direct about its action.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It is implicitly clear that it is for obtaining example source code, but no comparative or contextual usage notes are provided.

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