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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool returns (props, types, defaults, examples, composition patterns, mistakes) and frames it as a read/preflight action to prevent build failures. While it doesn't explicitly state 'no side effects', the verb 'Get' strongly implies a read-only operation, and the description provides meaningful context beyond the schema.

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 with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the primary purpose and lists the exact content categories. The second establishes a mandatory usage instruction and provides concrete failure examples. Every part earns its place.

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 one-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what the agent will receive (props, types, defaults, examples, patterns, mistakes) and when to invoke it. The sibling tool context makes its role clear, and the description covers all necessary information for correct 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?

The schema already fully documents the single parameter componentName with an explanatory example, so schema coverage is 100%. The description reinforces that this applies to a single component and explains why the name matters (to avoid wrong props), but it doesn't add new syntactic or format details beyond what the schema provides. 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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly defines the resource: exact props with types and defaults, code examples, composition patterns, and common mistakes for a single @marmoui/ui component. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components or search_components by focusing on a single component and prescribing the exact detail level.

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 states when to use the tool: REQUIRED before using any component for the first time in a session. It also provides a compelling rationale (prevents hallucinated props that fail at build time). It doesn't enumerate alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the mandatory-before-use instruction gives clear context.

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