uibrik

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing that the payload includes the full source of every installed file, which signals a potentially large response, and the schema's include_source default reinforces that. No mention of response size limits or pagination, keeping it below 5.

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 with zero filler: the return payload leads, and the input prerequisite follows. Every clause carries information an agent needs before calling.

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 two-parameter read-only retrieval tool with fully documented parameters, the description compensates for the absent output schema by enumerating the returned fields. The remaining gap is the unresolved overlap with get_install_instructions, which the description does not address.

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%, including the slug example and the include_source opt-out explanation, so the schema does the heavy lifting and baseline is 3. The description adds only the provenance of the slug (it comes from search_components) and corroborates that source files are part of the default response.

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 names a specific resource (one uibrik component) and enumerates exactly what comes back: description, install commands, npm packages, import line, props, and full file source. That is far more precise than the title alone. It stops short of 5 because it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_install_instructions, even though it also returns install commands.

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?

"Use a slug from search_components" gives a concrete prerequisite and routes the agent to the correct sibling for obtaining input. It gives no exclusion, however, so an agent must still guess why it would call get_install_instructions instead of this tool when only install data is needed.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and locality are covered. The description adds useful framing that the instructions exist in three variants and that the manual route avoids the shadcn CLI, but it never says what the call actually returns (a markdown guide? one doc or several?) or whether the response differs per framework.

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 sentence that front-loads the purpose and packs the three options without filler. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema.

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, read-only tool with no output schema and clear annotations, this is nearly sufficient — the agent knows what it retrieves and for which framework. The only real shortfall is the unspecified shape of the returned instructions.

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 0%, so the description must carry the enum meaning — and it largely does, mapping nextjs, vite, and manual to recognizable scenarios and clarifying that 'manual' means copying files without the shadcn CLI. It does not mention the nextjs default, but that is already visible in the schema.

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 names the resource (set-up instructions for uibrik components) and enumerates the three covered paths: Next.js, Vite, and manual copy. That is enough for an agent to separate it from get_component, list_categories, and search_components, though it is phrased as a noun fragment rather than a verb+resource statement.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the prerequisite-reading step before installing or using uibrik components. There is no explicit when-to-use versus siblings, no stated prerequisite (e.g., call before get_component), and no 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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds useful return-content context (sections, categories, slugs), but says nothing about catalog size, response shape, or whether the full listing could be large — a meaningful gap for a no-filter list tool.

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 short sentences with no wasted words, and the return-content claim is front-loaded before the usage hint. The opening is a verbless fragment ('The uibrik catalog by section and category...'), which is slightly less crisp than a direct verb-led statement but still immediately parseable.

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 carries the burden of describing returns and does so at a high level: sections, categories, and every component slug. That is enough for an agent to know it can harvest slugs here before calling get_component or get_install_instructions; only volume/pagination expectations are unaddressed.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain; the baseline for a zero-parameter schema applies. The description correctly implies the tool returns the entire catalog unfiltered.

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 names the resource (the uibrik catalog) and its organizing structure (by section and category, with component slugs), which is specific enough to distinguish it from get_component and search_components. It stops short of an explicit verb like 'lists all', leaving the action implied by the name and the fragment phrasing.

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?

'Use it to browse before searching' gives a concrete usage context and implicitly routes the agent to search_components for targeted lookups. There are no explicit exclusions or prerequisites, but for a zero-parameter browse tool the guidance is sufficient to select it correctly.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the return payload is slugs rather than full components, and empty-query behavior is category-browse. It stops short of saying how results are ranked or how many categories a query may match, but that is a minor gap given the annotation coverage.

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 purpose and the 'use this first' directive are front-loaded in the opening two sentences, followed by examples and the return contract. Every sentence carries distinct information; the four examples are short and directly reduce query-formulation errors.

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 zero-required-parameter search tool with no output schema, the definition supplies the missing return-value information (slugs, fed to get_component), the invocation trigger, and query-formulation guidance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond it by giving concrete query examples ('pricing', 'animated button', 'uptime chart', 'text reveal') that reveal expected phrasing, and by specifying the query/category interaction rule ('Leave query empty to list everything in a category'), which the schema does not state.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search uibrik's animated React components') and scopes it by technology stack (Tailwind CSS v4, Motion, WebGL) and by intent ('by what they do'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component by explaining it 'Returns slugs to pass to get_component', so an agent can tell the two apart without opening a schema.

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?

'Use this first whenever the task is building or restyling UI in a React project' gives an explicit ordering rule against siblings, and 'Returns slugs to pass to get_component' names the follow-up tool. The clause 'Leave query empty to list everything in a category' also covers the browsing case that would otherwise compete with list_categories.

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