registry

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions the required Authorization header for Pro components and indicates the output is full TypeScript source. It lacks details on error handling or rate limits, but for a simple read tool the key behaviors are covered.

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-loaded with the action and resource, then a concise note on authentication. Every sentence contributes useful information with no fluff.

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 tool has only one parameter, no output schema, and no annotations. The description, combined with the schema, fully conveys the tool's purpose, what it returns (source code), and an important access requirement. There is no significant missing context for an agent to invoke it successfully.

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 already has 100% coverage of the single 'name' parameter with a clear example and pointer to search_registry. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 fetches the full TypeScript source of a Crucible component, using the specific verb 'Fetch' and naming the resource. This differentiates it from siblings like get_usage (which likely provides usage docs) and install_instructions, as it is explicitly about obtaining source code.

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 a clear use case ('ready to drop into a shadcn-style project') and notes an authentication prerequisite for Pro components, providing enough context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns (demo source and rendering conventions) and even highlights a specific requirement (relative isolate wrapper). It omits an explicit read-only/safety statement but the 'Show' wording implies a non-mutating info retrieval.

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?

Two terse sentences front-load the purpose and close with actionable guidance. No filler or repetition.

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 covers what, when, and why, plus a valuable rendering gotcha. It lacks explicit return structure or error handling, but for a single-parameter example tool with no output schema, this is adequate.

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 sole `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema, including an example and a pointer to search_registry. With 100% schema coverage, the description doesn't need to add parameter-specific detail, meeting the baseline.

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 shows a worked usage example and rendering conventions for a Crucible component, including the specific `relative isolate` wrapper requirement. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component and install_instructions by focusing on usage rather than component metadata or installation steps.

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?

Provides explicit timing ('Call this before writing integration code') and a consequence ('so the install actually renders'). However, it doesn't name alternative tools for when not to use it, leaving a small gap.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavior. It indicates the tool returns informative instructions rather than performing an action, but it does not explicitly state that it is read-only or disclose any side effects, limitations, or prerequisites.

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, focused sentence that packs all relevant information—what the tool does and what it covers—without any wasted words or redundant structure.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context about the returned content (CLI command, registry config, dependencies). It also helps differentiate from get_usage, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 already fully documents the single 'name' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, 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?

The description clearly states that the tool provides installation instructions for a Crucible component, including shadcn CLI command, registry config, and npm dependencies. It differentiates from sibling tools like get_usage by focusing specifically on installation.

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 implies the tool is for installation guidance, but it does not explicitly state when to use it vs. alternatives or when not to use it. The sibling tool names suggest distinctions, but no direct comparison is given.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return payload ('Returns names, descriptions, and dependencies') and implies a read-only search operation. However, it omits any details about pagination, rate limits, or side effects. For a search tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 long, front-loaded with the main purpose, and contains no redundant or irrelevant information. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is clean and direct.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description provides enough context: it covers what can be searched, what is returned, and a link to the sibling tool for sources. It lacks details on result limits or behavior when multiple filters are combined, but these are not critical for basic usage. Given the absence of annotations, the description is reasonably complete.

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 only describes 'query'; the description compensates by naming all three parameters ('keyword, category, or tier') and explicitly linking them to search criteria. This adds meaning beyond the schema, though it does not explain how parameters combine when multiple are provided.

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 searches Crucible's animated React components by keyword, category, or tier. It specifies a concrete verb ('Search'), resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component tool by explicitly directing users to that tool for source code.

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 provides clear context by stating the search dimensions and explicitly names an alternative: 'Use get_component to fetch source.' This gives a concrete follow-up action, though it does not discuss when to avoid this tool in favor of get_usage or install_instructions. The guidance is clear but not exhaustive.

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