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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing default resolution when "example" is omitted and the composition/ordering of returned content (page block examples include the files its install writes, imported files follow). It does not mention size limits or truncation of the returned code.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence with no wasted preamble. The middle sentences about page-block example composition are dense and grammatically tangled ("the files its install writes, the page first"), costing readability, though they are not 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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of explaining what is returned (working example code, plus associated install/imported files) and what the optional parameters default to. The remaining gap is behavioral detail about response shape or size, which is minor for a read-only fetch.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented, including the "style" fallback to the Radix version. The description reinforces the "example" default behavior but adds no format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

"Get the code of one example of a Wisty UI item" gives a specific verb (get) and resource (an item's example code), and the closing mention of get_component clarifies the relationship between fetching one example versus listing them. It stops short of a crisp single-sentence statement of scope, but an agent can tell what it returns.

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?

"Without example, the first one, which shows the job the item is for" gives useful default-selection guidance, and the note that get_component lists examples by name implies a discovery workflow. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives statement (e.g. when to call get_component or get_install_command instead), so routing is inferred rather than stated.

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