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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses detailed return behavior for each recipe type (anatomy tree, motion, states, webm, tokens; shader config, fps, install command; parameter surfaces) and also states the error fallback ('Returns the available types if the requested one isn't found'). This is highly transparent for a read-only fetcher.

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 longer than average but well-structured with an intro, bullet-separated families, usage examples, and a fallback note. Every section adds value, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing clarity, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

This is a complex tool with three recipe families, no output schema, and rich return details. The description covers return values, valid inputs, use cases, and error behavior comprehensively, making it fully contextual for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 provides only names and types with 0% coverage, so the description must define all parameters. It thoroughly explains recipe_type with a full list of valid values and what each returns, and gives examples for site, thus adding complete semantic meaning beyond 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 clearly states it is a universal BUILD-KIT fetcher that returns measured spec + code to reproduce a UI. It explicitly lists three recipe families (COMPONENTS, EFFECTS, MOTION) and differentiates itself from siblings like get_component and get_section by calling itself the universal one-call solution.

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?

It provides explicit use-case guidance ('Use for "build a <thing> like <product>"') and gives concrete examples. However, it does not explicitly state when NOT to use this tool or name alternative sibling tools for exclusion, so it falls 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.