get_api_examples

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the read operation ('Get'). It does not mention response format, limitations, authentication needs, or scope of examples, which are essential for safe invocation.

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 a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, with no wasted words, though it sacrifices completeness for brevity.

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?

The description is minimal for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It lacks information about the return format, example quantity, or how to specify topics beyond the vague schema example, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 input schema covers the sole parameter 'topic' with a description, achieving 100% coverage. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline but does not improve it.

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 code examples for Garmin Connect IQ functionality. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('code examples'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'get_class_details' or 'search_garmin_docs' which serve different purposes.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and sibling tool list.

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