Get usage examples

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a safe, non-mutating, externally-sourced read. The description adds the provenance detail that these are the same examples shown on the item's page, but says nothing about format, language, size, or behavior when an item has no examples.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the resource is front-loaded. The parenthetical adds a bit of value rather than padding.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description should at least identify the key's format and whether the result is a code block or a list. What exists is minimal but not misleading.

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% and the single 'name' parameter is completely undocumented in the schema. The phrase 'for an item' weakly implies that 'name' identifies the item, but the description never states whether it expects a slug, ID, or display name, so the gap is only partially closed.

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 (working example code) and scope (for an item), which separates it cleanly from get_item, get_install_command, and get_setup in the sibling list. It is clear what the tool returns, though the description never names the 'name' argument it operates on.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. The only routing hint is the implicit contrast with get_item, and nothing tells the agent why it would choose examples over install commands or setup instructions.

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