get_star_examples

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It conveys a read-only retrieval operation with optional filters, which is minimally adequate. However, it does not disclose output format details, default behavior when no filter is provided, authentication needs, or any other behavioral traits beyond the basic 'get' semantics.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the operation and filters, and the second sentence lists the relevant competencies. Every sentence contributes useful information with 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?

With an output schema present, return values are covered elsewhere. The single optional parameter is partially documented through the competency list, but the phantom keyword filter and lack of clarification about default behavior leave meaningful gaps for an agent trying to invoke the tool correctly.

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. It adds value by listing the valid competencies on file, which effectively documents acceptable values for the competency parameter. However, it also mentions a 'keyword' filter that does not exist in the input schema, making the parameter mapping confusing and incomplete.

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 verb and resource: 'get' STAR examples, with an optional filter by competency or keyword. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but none of the siblings appear to target STAR examples. The mention of a 'keyword' filter that is not present in the input schema introduces some ambiguity.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It only implies that filtering is optional. There is no mention of scenarios where a sibling tool would be more appropriate.

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