Layro

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value on top by disclosing the result space (free, subscriber, lifetime, purchased, unauthorized), which is behavioral information the annotations do not carry and there is no output schema to supply it.

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 compact sentence with the outcome enumeration front-loaded after the core question; nothing is padded. It is slightly clipped in phrasing ('take a component or template'), but every clause 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 check with no output schema, the description supplies the essential missing piece: what the returned verdict values mean. The main residual gap is that it never indicates the calling context (check-before-download) or any auth requirements.

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?

With a single parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents 'slug' as a component or template slug. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter (e.g., whether template vs component slugs are both accepted, or format/casing), so the baseline of 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 specific check (can the caller take this asset) against a specific resource (component or template) and even enumerates the possible verdicts. It reads as an entitlement check rather than a fetch, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_component or get_template, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 can infer this should be called before attempting to take/download a paid asset, but the description never says when to call it, when not to, or how it relates to get_component/get_template. No alternatives or preconditions are named.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description need not restate it. The description does contribute useful content scope (what categories of data come back), but says nothing about failure behavior for an invalid slug or any access requirements, so it only modestly exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

It is a single, dense sentence with the key distinction ('except its source') front-loaded, followed by an enumeration of return contents. Every clause earns its place, though the long comma list is on the heavy side and could be structured as bullets.

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 must describe the return payload, and it does so thoroughly (props, variants, npm dependencies, installed files, usage example, layout, related components and recipes). It is only short of complete because it omits error behavior and any hint about pagination or payload size for this fixed-scope fetch.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ('data-table'), so the schema carries the full burden. The description adds no additional meaning about the slug format, case sensitivity, or valid values, which is the expected baseline here.

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 a Layro component') and then delimits the scope precisely: 'Everything about one component except its source.' The exclusion of source implicitly but clearly separates it from the sibling get_component_code, so an agent can route between them 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?

Usage is implied by the single-parameter lookup shape (fetch one component by slug), and the 'except its source' clause hints at when to prefer get_component_code instead. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of search_components as the path for discovery, and no note on what happens with an unknown slug.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, and the description adds real value beyond them: the Free-token vs Pro-lifetime-access auth split and the fact that output is files keyed to paths ready to save. It does not mention rate limits or failure modes for missing/invalid tokens.

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, followed by access conditions and the alternative route. No filler, every clause carries load-bearing information.

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 the return value — source files ready to save at given paths — and it does so. Combined with the auth prerequisites and the CLI alternative, an agent has everything needed to call it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so both slug and include_dependencies are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of 'every file it imports' echoes include_dependencies but adds no format or edge-case detail beyond 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?

States a specific verb and resource — returns the complete source for one component plus every file it imports, ready to save at given paths. This distinguishes it from get_component (metadata) and get_installation (CLI setup) without the agent needing to open 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?

Explicitly routes the agent to the alternative: use the shadcn CLI when commands can be run, referencing get_installation by name. It also states the access precondition for Free vs Pro components, so the agent knows whether the call can even succeed.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, yet the description adds real value beyond them: the registry setup is one-time, the CLI command is always @layro/<slug> and never a bare URL, and the agent command carries a 15-minute install token gated on the connection having a CLI token. It also explains that installed_packages suppresses already-present packages. It stops short of stating auth requirements for the tool itself or behavior on invalid slugs.

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?

It is front-loaded with a clear lead-in ('Installation for one or more components:'), but the entire description is a single sprawling sentence built from a long comma-separated list. Every clause carries information, yet the run-on structure makes it harder to parse than a short structured list would be.

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 correctly assumes the burden of describing the return contents, and it does so comprehensively (registry, CLI command, agent command, packages, files, theme). Minor gaps remain: no statement about error behavior for unknown slugs or whether output differs by mode beyond what the schema says.

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 schema already documents all four parameters, including the meaning and provenance of installed_packages and the mode enum semantics. The description reinforces the slug format constraint ('always @layro/<slug>') and the package.json origin of installed_packages, but adds little beyond what the schema already states, 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 clearly identifies the resource (installation setup for one or more components) and enumerates the concrete artifacts it produces: registry setup, shadcn CLI command, agent command, missing npm packages, files, and theme setup. It does not, however, explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_component_code or get_recipe, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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. The description includes operative hints such as 'pass installed_packages from package.json' and 'when this connection carries a CLI token,' but these describe output conditions rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. No explicit when-not or sibling routing is given.

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, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond that: it discloses the shape of the returned artifacts (multi-component, runnable files) and a quality guarantee ("Every recipe typechecks against the components"), which an agent cannot derive from annotations or 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?

Compact at two sentences, with the list-versus-fetch behavior front-loaded. The middle enumeration of example recipes is informative rather than wasteful, though the opening sentence is dense with component names.

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 single optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers both invocation modes and the nature of the returned files. Only the return-shape specifics (e.g. file listing structure when listing) are left implicit, which is acceptable here.

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 slug parameter's description already explains the fetch-versus-list behavior, so the schema carries the weight. The description restates the no-slug listing behavior without adding format or constraint detail (e.g. what an invalid slug returns), 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 clearly identifies the resource (Layro recipes: complete, runnable files combining components) and enumerates concrete examples (AI chat app shell, dashboard app, billing page), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. However, it never states the verb or contrasts itself with near siblings like get_template or get_component_code, so differentiation is left to inference.

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 tells the agent the two modes of operation – pass a slug to fetch one recipe, omit it to list recipes – which is useful contextual usage. But there is no guidance on when to reach for a recipe versus get_template, get_component, or get_component_code, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the response includes a download-permission check for the caller, and files are deliberately excluded from the payload. That scope limit is exactly the kind of context an agent could otherwise assume wrong.

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, no filler, with the primary purpose front-loaded and the negative scope ('Never returns the template's files') placed second where it reads as a qualifier rather than the lead. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the two things the response carries: template details and the caller's download permission. It stays silent on what 'details' includes and on error behavior for an unknown slug, but for a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage 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 coverage is 100% and the slug parameter is documented in the schema with a format example ('settle'), so the description needs to add nothing. It does not, and adds nothing, which is the correct baseline of 3.

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 ('One template's details') plus the extra access-check payload, so an agent knows this is the singular fetch by slug as opposed to the list-oriented search_templates. It does not explicitly name a sibling or contrast with check_access, which also concerns download permission, so it stops short of a 5.

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 only says what the tool returns; it never states when to reach for it instead of search_templates or check_access, nor any prerequisite beyond supplying a slug. Usage is inferable from the name but nothing in the text routes the agent among alternatives.

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, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by disclosing the shape of the returned content, but says nothing about size, caching, or auth needs beyond what annotations imply.

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 sentence that front-loads the primary content (colour tokens) and then lists secondary items. Every clause carries information, though the comma-list format is slightly harder to scan than discrete sentences would be.

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 it does so reasonably well by naming the four content areas. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it, though a note on output format or typical size 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 the baseline is 4; the schema is empty and there is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for.

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 enumerates the concrete contents of the theme resource (colour tokens with light/dark values, type scale, cn() config, restyling path), so an agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It lacks an explicit verb and does not name a sibling to distinguish itself from, keeping it out of 5 territory.

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: the mention of 'how to restyle Layro to a brand from your own CSS without editing components' suggests when this is relevant, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no alternatives (e.g. get_component_code) named.

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 readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add real substance beyond that: it says the response bundles components per category and a 'library contract' spanning stack, theme, access, install path, and accessibility/responsive behaviour. It still omits volume, pagination, or caching behaviour.

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?

One sentence with the core payload front-loaded and the colon list of contract fields appended. It is dense but every clause carries information; no filler. Slightly heavy for a single sentence and could be split for readability.

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 must convey return values, and it does: categories, their components, and the library contract fields (stack, theme, access, install path, accessibility, responsive behaviour). What is missing is any sense of result size or ordering. For a zero-argument read tool this is largely 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?

There are zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter detail, but none is needed since the tool takes no arguments.

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 (Layro catalogue categories) and enumerates what comes with each (components plus the library contract). It is a noun phrase rather than a verb+resource statement, but 'list_categories' plus this content makes the operation unmistakable and distinct from get_component/search_components. It stops short of explicitly differentiating itself from the search_* siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as search_components or get_component. An agent must infer that this is the catalogue-browsing entry point. The second half of the sentence describes payload contents, which is not usage 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 already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the result shape and ranking behavior: best matches first, with slug, category, access tier (free or pro), and version. It does not discuss result caps or pagination beyond the limit param.

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?

Three short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the workflow hint last. Every sentence carries distinct information (what it does, what it returns, what to do next).

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 correctly compensates by naming the returned fields and ordering. Combined with fully documented parameters and safety annotations, an agent has what it needs, though the relationship to search_templates remains unstated.

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%, with limit, query, and category all documented in the schema (including defaults, bounds, and examples). The description adds no parameter-level detail, 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 and resource ("Find Layro React + Tailwind components by what they do") and clarifies the retrieval model is semantic/intent-based. It routes to get_component but does not explicitly distinguish itself from search_templates, the closest sibling, leaving that separation implicit.

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?

"Start here, then call get_component for details" gives a clear entry-point role and names the follow-up tool. It lacks an explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g. versus search_templates or list_categories), so it stops short of full routing 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 already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description's only added behavior is that each result carries a live preview and licensing information, which is useful but thin; nothing is said about result counts, pagination, or how many templates a query typically returns.

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 with zero filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the return facets. Nothing can be trimmed without losing information.

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 usefully names the fields each result contains, which is the right move. However, for a two-parameter search tool it omits the limit parameter's behavior and any notion of result volume or ordering, leaving a real 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 description coverage is only 50%: 'query' is documented in the schema but 'limit' has no description anywhere. The description mentions no parameters at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented limit bound (1-10) or explain that query is a natural-language purpose string rather than an ID.

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 (complete Layro React / Next.js templates) and enumerates the returned facets (description, stack, live preview, license). It is clear on its own but never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_template (single template) or search_components, leaving the agent to infer the singular/plural split.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only usage hint ('Leave out to list all templates') lives in the schema, not the description, so the description gives the agent nothing to route on versus get_template or search_components.

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