Eased

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false), yet the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the free-vs-Pro content split and the fact that Pro source is only returned if the server was configured with an Eased Pro token header. That conditional payload difference materially affects what the agent can do with the result.

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?

Front-loads the payload summary ('Everything about one Eased component as Markdown') and then spends its second sentence on the free/Pro distinction, which is the one non-obvious fact. Dense but every clause carries information; the long enumeration of fields is somewhat list-like but not wasteful.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of describing return content, and it does so thoroughly (Markdown format, which fields, when source code is included). For a single-parameter read tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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% and the schema description already defines the slug format with examples ('button', 'hover-card') and its provenance from list_components/search_components. The description does not need to restate it, and adds no contradicting param info.

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 ('Get an Eased component') and enumerates exactly what comes back: title, description, tier, README docs, install command, dependencies, plus source/demo for free components. The singular 'one component' framing differentiates it from list_components and search_components without needing their schemas.

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: it is the fetch-by-slug step that follows list_components/search_components, which the slug parameter description references. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have a slug, use search_components when you don't' routing statement, so an agent must infer the workflow.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: only free components install from the public registry, while Pro components are surfaced separately as requiring Eased Pro. It doesn't explain mixed free/Pro input or output shape, keeping it from a 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, zero filler. The core outcome (one install command) is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries a non-obvious registry constraint that 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, read-only tool with no output schema, the description conveys the return type (a single command) and the key registry limitation, which is nearly everything an agent needs. It leaves the mixed free/Pro-slug case unaddressed, 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% and the single `slugs` parameter is already documented with an example and constraints. The description's 'components (and their tokens and helpers)' clarifies the scope of the slugs but adds only marginal meaning over the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a precise verb+resource: it produces a single `npx shadcn add …` command for the supplied component slugs, distinguishing it in nature from the sibling retrieval/search tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to contrast against, so it falls just short of the top bar.

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 implied (call it when you need an install command for components), and the free-vs-Pro caveat hints at a limitation, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or named alternative among the siblings.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), so the marginal bar is low. The description still adds genuinely useful behavior: the return is Markdown and its contents are enumerated, which matters because there is no output schema. It stops short of noting document size or that the whole skill must be retained in context, which would be the last piece of helpful context.

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?

Front-loaded with the deliverable and its format, with the directive sentence last where it belongs. The parenthetical rule list is long but each item is load-bearing content, not filler; the single sentence is dense and slightly run-on, which is the only cost.

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-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it by naming the return format and summarizing the payload. It is complete enough to call correctly, though a note on document length or how to apply the skill across a session would close the remaining 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter text is present, but none is needed.

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 ('Get the Eased design skill as Markdown') and then enumerates what the document contains — install/compose guidance, tokens, and the checkable rules. An agent can distinguish this from list_components, search_components, get_component and get_install_command without opening any 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?

Gives explicit sequencing ('Call it first, before you build or change UI with Eased') plus an ongoing obligation ('follow it while you work'). This is a rare case of a tool that states both the trigger condition and the alternatives by implication — the sibling tools are for looking up individual pieces, this one is the prerequisite.

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 is covered. The description adds real behavioural context: results come in catalogue order and carry a defined field set (slug, title, summary, tier, verb, industries, page URL), which is more than the annotations convey. It stops short of stating pagination or result limits.

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, front-loaded with what is returned and how it is ordered, then the routing guidance. Every clause carries information; nothing is padding.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, the sort order, and the filter semantics. An agent has everything needed to call this correctly and interpret the response.

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 both params fully described and enum'd in the schema itself. The description's mention of industry examples (crypto, legal) and the tier concept adds only marginal meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (list) and resource (Eased components) and defines that resource inline, plus the ordering (catalogue order). It also names the sibling it is not (search_components), so an agent can distinguish it without opening any 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?

Explicitly says to use it to browse what exists, optionally narrowed to one industry, and routes the agent to search_components for a specific need. The when-to-use and the alternative are both spelled out.

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 is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: which fields are matched (title, slug, interaction verb, description, README docs) and that results are ordered best-match-first.

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 dense paragraph, front-loaded with purpose, then matching behavior, then the optional filter, then the next step. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 search with no output schema, the description covers purpose, match fields, ranking, filtering, and the follow-up tool. It stops short of saying what a result record looks like or how results are limited/paginated, which an agent might want.

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% and the industry enum is exhaustively documented in the schema itself, including per-value glosses. The description restates the industry narrowing and adds one illustrative query/industry pairing, which is only marginal value over the structured field.

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 (Find) and resource (Eased components) and immediately grounds it with four concrete need examples like "tooltip" and "tabs with a sliding indicator". It also names the follow-up sibling get_component, so the agent can place it in the workflow 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?

Explains what to do after searching ("Follow up with get_component for docs and source") and when to add the industry filter. It does not explicitly contrast with list_components or say when not to search, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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