find_examples

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds 'indexed code chunks' as a data source context, which is somewhat informative. However, it does not mention any behavioral nuances like result pagination, filtering behavior, or what constitutes an 'implementation example'.

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 that directly states the core purpose. It is concise and contains no fluff. However, given the tool's complexity (six parameters) and the complete absence of parameter descriptions, the extreme brevity might be seen as under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, but structurally it is effective.

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?

With six parameters, an output schema, and annotations, this tool has moderate complexity. The description only covers the basic 'what', leaving out parameter usage, filtering options, and any constraints. While the output schema covers return values, the description does not provide enough context for an agent to choose and invoke the tool effectively, especially without any sibling differentiation.

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 by explaining parameter meanings. It does not mention any of the six parameters (query, tags, limit, language, categories, canonical_urls) or their roles. The single sentence provides no parameter semantics beyond the implied 'query' from the purpose, leaving the agent to rely solely on 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('implementation examples'), sourced from 'indexed code chunks'. This is a clear, non-tautological purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'search_code' or 'search_api', so it misses the top score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or preferred contexts. While the purpose implies use for finding examples, there is no explicit direction, and sibling tool names are not referenced. This is essentially no guidance.

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