Get Code Snippets

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description discloses caching mechanics (index on first call, disk cache for subsequent), source prioritization (llms.txt > Jina HTML > GitHub README), and proprietary data notice with usage restrictions. This adds significant behavioral context. No contradiction 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 well-structured: first paragraph explains tool function, second when to use, third data sources and caching, fourth differentiation from sibling, and fifth proprietary notice. It is front-loaded with key information and each sentence adds value. No redundancy.

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 description covers usage, caching, sourcing, limitations, and output structure (Context7-compat fields). Despite no output schema, it explains the return format. For a 7-parameter tool with complex caching behavior, this is sufficiently complete. Slight room for more explicit parameter dependencies (e.g., version caching).

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?

All 7 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage). The description adds context such as libraryId formats, topic examples, version caching, refresh behavior, and auto-detection via projectPath. This elevates understanding beyond the schema alone, justifying a score above baseline 3.

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 it returns ranked code snippets for a library and optional topic, with specific verb 'return ranked code snippets' and resource 'library + optional topic'. It distinguishes from sibling `gt_examples` which focuses on real open-source examples, and from full doc pages via `gt_get_docs`. The title and name align with this purpose.

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 says when to use ('focused code examples rather than full doc pages') and provides an alternative (`gt_examples` for examples from real projects). It also describes caching behavior but does not explicitly state when not to use. Clear context is provided for selection among siblings.

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