Get XGR standard example

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only states 'retrieve', implying a read operation, but lacks details on permissions, data freshness, or side effects. This is insufficient given the absence of 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 two sentences, front-loading the purpose and adding a brief usage note. Every sentence adds value 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?

For a simple two-parameter tool without output schema, the description covers the return type (JSON example) and intent, but omits parameter explanations and does not fully address the selection of standards. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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?

The schema has two required parameters (standard with enum, name as string) with no descriptions (0% coverage). The description does not explain what 'name' represents or how to use the parameters, leaving the agent without crucial information.

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 tool retrieves a JSON example for XRC-137 or XRC-729. However, the schema includes additional standards (xdala-authoring, xgr-multibundle) not mentioned, causing slight ambiguity. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_xgr_standard_reference or get_xgr_standard_schema.

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 advises that examples are for drafting and need validation, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_xgr_standard_reference. Usage context is implied but not detailed.

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