sw_api_example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the VBA-first/VB.NET-fallback behavior and that results are indexed by interface/member, which is useful. However it says nothing about ordering, result shape, or what 'limit' bounds, leaving real behavioral gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Content is dense but ordered: resource and index first, then the use-case routing to sw_execute_script, then the three lookup modes. No filler sentences, though the single long paragraph could be more scannable.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 5 parameters, the description should describe the return payload more fully. It covers most query modes but omits the 'limit' default behavior and gives only a hint ('el codigo completo') about what a result actually contains, leaving the agent guessing at output structure.

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% with 5 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it explains query as free-text search with concrete examples, iface/member as those linked by an interface or member, and id as returning the full code of a single example. Only 'limit' is left unexplained.

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?

States a specific resource (official API code examples for the 2026 help, VBA with VB.NET fallback) and what it is indexed by (interfaces and members). It distinguishes itself implicitly from sibling doc tools (sw_api_search, sw_api_doc, sw_api_enum, sw_api_members) by returning full runnable code, though it never names those siblings.

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?

Explicitly says when to use it: 'Para descubrir el flujo completo de una operacion ... antes de escribirla en sw_execute_script' – discovering the sequence of calls before scripting. It names the downstream tool but gives no when-not guidance versus the other sw_api_* lookups.

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