registry

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the auth requirement for pro components, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention error handling, rate limits, or output format beyond implying ready-to-use source 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?

The description is compact at two sentences: the first defines the tool's core purpose, and the second adds critical auth information. Every word is earned, with no redundancy or 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?

Given low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the action, how to find the parameter value, and auth needs. The return format (TypeScript source code) is implied but not explicitly stated, which is a minor gap.

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 100% for the single required parameter 'name', and the description adds a usage example ('corona') and directs users to the sibling tool search_registry for finding names, adding meaningful value beyond the schema's type hint.

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 action (fetch the full TypeScript source) and the resource (a Crucible component) with context (ready for shadcn-style). It also distinguishes from siblings by implying different purposes: search_registry for finding names, get_component for fetching source, get_usage and install_instructions for other tasks.

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 mentioning the project style and auth requirements for pro components, with a link to get a token. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the sibling tools cover alternative actions, making usage implicit.

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 fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions the 'relative isolate wrapper' convention but does not state whether the tool is read-only, requires authentication, or has any side effects. For a safe, read-only operation, this is a gap.

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 consists of two concise sentences without fluff. The first sentence immediately states the purpose and key detail (relative isolate wrapper), and the second provides a practical usage recommendation. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains what to expect: a worked example (demo source) and rendering conventions. It mentions a specific convention and usage timing. Could be slightly more explicit about the output format, but overall sufficient.

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 100% of the single parameter with a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter information beyond what is in the schema, so baseline 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 shows how to USE a Crucible component correctly, providing a worked example and conventions. This differentiates it from siblings like get_component (which likely retrieves the component definition) and install_instructions (installation steps). The verb 'Show how to USE' is specific, and the mention of 'relative isolate wrapper' adds concrete detail.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool before writing integration code to ensure the install renders correctly, providing clear context. However, it does not state when not to use it or suggest alternatives to sibling tools, so it lacks explicit exclusions.

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 exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states what is returned but lacks details on side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or confirmation that it is read-only.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the purpose and key content, with no wasted words.

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?

Given the low parameter count, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is mostly complete. However, it lacks mention of return format or an example, leaving minor 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'name' described in the schema. The description adds no extra semantics beyond 'component name', so baseline 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 provides install instructions, specifying exact content (shadcn CLI command, registry config, npm dependencies), and distinguishes from siblings like get_component, get_usage, and search_registry.

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 use when install instructions are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusion criteria.

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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the return shape (names, descriptions, dependencies) but omits behavioral details such as pagination, sorting, whether results are a list or single item, and any side effects. The information is adequate for a simple search tool but lacks comprehensiveness.

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 sentences convey purpose, filtering options, output summary, and a cross-reference to a sibling. Every sentence serves a clear purpose with no wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (3 optional params, no output schema), the description covers the essential: what it searches, what it returns, and the primary alternative. It is slightly lacking in detail on return format and does not mention other siblings, but remains largely complete for effective agent use.

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 only 33% (only 'query' has a description). The tool description names the three parameters (keyword, category, tier) but does not explain their semantics beyond what the schema already provides. It adds minimal value by grouping them as filters, but not enough to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 specifies the action (Search), the resource (Crucible's animated React components), and the filtering criteria (by keyword, category, or tier). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool get_component by stating its output and directing users to use get_component 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 advises using get_component for fetching source, providing valuable alternative guidance. However, it does not address when to use other siblings like get_usage or install_instructions, leaving some usage context implicit.

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