Aura UI

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses what is returned (the artisan command, dependency tree, file list, and optional Blade source). However, it does not explicitly mention whether the tool performs any mutation on the project or is purely a read-only retrieval. The phrasing 'Get everything needed to install' suggests it returns information rather than executes the install, but this is implied rather than stated, preventing a perfect score.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately listing the key contents. Every sentence serves a purpose, with no filler. The structure is efficient and easy to parse.

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 tool has no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating exactly what will be returned: the artisan command, transitive dependency tree, file list, and optional Blade source. It also provides usage context and distinguishes from discovery tools. It could be more complete by noting any prerequisites beyond a Laravel project or potential errors, but for a retrieval-oriented tool this is close to sufficient.

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% for the two parameters, with both 'name' and 'with_source' already having clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond restating that source is optional. Per the guidelines, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not elevate it.

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 everything needed to install') and clearly identifies the resource (Aura UI component/block) and the target context (Laravel project). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on installation, contrasting with list/search/get. The listing of included items (command, dependency tree, file list, source) further clarifies its role.

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 call this tool: 'when you are ready to install a component you found via list/search/get.' This provides clear usage context and implies that discovery tools (list/search/get) are for finding, while this tool is for installation. This is strong, actionable guidance.

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 are empty ({}) so no safety hints are provided, and the description carries the full burden. The description indicates this is a descriptive/informational tool (describing theme presets and doc topics), implying a read-only behavior, but it doesn't disclose what the actual output format is, whether it aggregates documentation, or how much content is returned. The informational intent is implied but nondestructive behavior is not explicitly confirmed.

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 a single, reasonably concise sentence that packs the purpose, content scope (presets, doc topics), and usage context together. It front-loads the core purpose. However, it lists many doc topics (install, layout modes, custom form fields, table columns, dashboard widgets, email theming) which adds some bloat without deep value.

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?

Given this is an informational/descriptive tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose reasonably well. However, it doesn't detail what the return value looks like (since there's no output schema), and with empty annotations the agent has limited signals about behavior. For a tool of this moderate complexity, the description is adequate but leaves the exact output nature ambiguous.

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% - the 'topic' parameter is documented as optional and described with examples ('presets', 'widgets', 'table-columns'). The description adds the theme-related context ('Filament v4/v5 admin panel') that reinforces the parameter's meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already covers the parameter well and the description adds modest additional context.

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 the tool describes the Aura Filament theme presets and documentation topics, using 'Describe' as the verb with a clear resource. However, it duplicates the title (Filament Theme Tool) and is somewhat vague about what exactly it returns - it reads more like a description of documentation rather than a concrete action. It doesn't clearly distinguish from sibling tools like search-components-tool or list-components-tool.

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 says 'Use this when the user is theming or building a Filament panel' which gives a use-context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or point to alternatives among the sibling tools (search, list, get, add components). The guidance is implied rather than explicit about 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?

With empty annotations, the description takes on the responsibility of explaining behavior. It fully discloses the output contents: 'its Blade tag, tier, a copy-pasteable usage example, and the complete Markdown documentation including all props.' This goes beyond the input schema and makes the tool's read-only nature apparent through its getter language, though it does not explicitly mention lack of side effects.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, then details of the output. Every sentence carries meaningful information with no redundancy or filler, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what the tool does, when to use it, and what it returns. It does not mention error conditions or prerequisites, but these are not critical for a straightforward retrieval tool. The sibling context confirms its role in the family, making the description adequately complete.

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 provides 100% coverage with a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The tool description adds value by reiterating that the name must be a single component's name and by providing concrete examples ('button', 'date-picker'), which reinforces the expected format and context.

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's function: 'Get full details for a single Aura UI component by name' and enumerates the exact data returned (Blade tag, tier, usage example, Markdown docs). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list-components-tool or search-components-tool, which involve multiple components or discovery.

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 an explicit usage trigger: 'Call this before generating Aura markup for a component.' This indicates when to use the tool but does not explicitly name alternatives (e.g., search-components-tool) for scenarios where the component name is unknown. The contextual phrase 'by name' implies that this is for known component names, giving clear if slightly implicit guidance.

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 are empty {} so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it lists both free and Pro components and returns specific metadata (Blade tag, tier, one-line description). It's a read-only catalog operation and the description's framing as 'discover what exists' communicates this well, though it doesn't explicitly state it's non-mutating.

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 wasted words. The first sentence states what is listed and what fields come back; the second gives clear usage guidance. Perfectly front-loaded and appropriate.

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 simple list/read operation with one optional enum parameter, fully documented schema, and a descriptive name, the description is complete. It doesn't need an output schema explanation since this is a discovery listing. It tells the agent what it returns, when to use it, and how it differs from search/get siblings.

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%—the single optional 'tier' parameter is fully documented in the schema with its enum values and purpose. The description reinforces the free/Pro concept but adds minimal new semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb (list), resource (Aura UI components), and what info is returned (Blade tag, tier, one-line description). It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting this is a discovery/overview tool, and mentions the free/Pro tiers which aligns with the sibling get-component-tool and search-components-tool.

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 it: 'before writing markup' to discover what components exist. This provides clear context for when the agent should invoke it. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the context of discovery-before-authoring effectively guides usage versus the sibling tools.

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?

With empty annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses that this is a read/search operation matching on name, title, and description fields. However, it doesn't describe behavior details like whether it's fuzzy matching, case sensitivity, ranking, or pagination of results—useful but not critical 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?

The description is a compact two-sentence format that front-loads the purpose, clarifies what's returned, and gives a usage example. Slightly verbose example list but overall efficient and zero waste.

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 simple single-parameter search tool with 100% schema coverage and clear sibling context, the description adequately covers purpose, return info, and usage triggers. It lacks detail on result ranking/ordering but that's unlikely to be essential for this tool type.

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 description reinforces that the query matches across 'name, title and description.' The description adds the scope of the match (which fields are searched) beyond the bare schema definition, providing moderate added value.

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 purpose is very clear: 'Search Aura UI components by keyword (matches name, title and description)' uses a specific verb+resource with explicit search scope. It also states what's returned ('matching components with their Blade tag and tier'), distinguishing it effectively from siblings like list-components-tool.

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 tells the agent when to use it: 'Use this when you need a component for a purpose, e.g. date, table, notification.' It provides good usage context, though it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternatives like list-components-tool vs get-component-tool.

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