get_usageShow how to USE a Crucible component correctly: a worked example (its demo source) plus the conventions that make it render — notably the relative isolate wrapper that background components require. Call this before writing integration code so the install actually renders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Component name, e.g. 'corona' — find names via search_registry |
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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct step in the registry workflow: search to discover, get_component to fetch source, get_usage to learn integration patterns, and install_instructions for setup. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: search_registry, get_component, get_usage, install_instructions. This makes the tool's purpose immediately clear from its name.
Four tools is well-scoped for a registry server covering discovery, source retrieval, usage guidance, and installation. Each tool earns its place without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the complete workflow an agent needs: finding a component, fetching its source, understanding how to use it, and installing it. No obvious gaps for the stated domain.