cellc_get_example

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full burden. It indicates a read operation returning source. However, no details on error behavior (e.g., invalid name), rate limits, or auth requirements. Adequate but minimal for a simple 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?

A single concise sentence with no wasted words. However, it could include a brief note about the 'name' parameter without losing conciseness.

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 1 parameter (undocumented), no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to find valid names (e.g., using cellc_list_examples) or what the returned source looks like. Agent may be confused without additional context.

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 coverage is 0% (no parameter descriptions in schema or description). The description does not explain what 'name' refers to (e.g., example name, contract filename). Since schema provides only type/required, description should compensate but fails to add meaning.

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 action ('Return'), resource ('example .cell contract's source'), and purpose ('few-shot grounding'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like cellc_list_examples (which lists) and cellc_explain (which explains).

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?

Usage is implied for few-shot grounding, but no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives. With siblings like cellc_list_examples, the description should specify that this returns full source for a specific example, while cellc_list_examples only lists names.

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