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, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them by itemizing the returned content (props, variants, dependencies, installed files, usage example, a11y/responsive notes), which matters since no output schema exists. It does not mention behavior on an unknown slug, which is a minor gap.

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 front-loaded sentence that moves immediately from scope ('everything about one component') to the excluded portion and then the content list. No filler; the enumeration is dense but each item is informative.

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 read tool with full annotation coverage and a fully described schema, the description carries the remaining burden of describing the return payload, which it does thoroughly. Missing only edge-case behavior (invalid slug) and any pagination/size caveats.

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?

Single required 'slug' parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including a concrete example ("data-table"). The description adds nothing about naming conventions or lookup behavior beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource (retrieves one component's metadata) and enumerates exactly what it returns. The phrase 'except its source' implicitly distinguishes it from get_component_code, but no sibling is named explicitly, keeping it 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?

Usage is only implied: the 'except its source' qualifier hints that get_component_code is the alternative for source code, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Adequate minimum-viable framing, no routing instruction.

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 declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it enumerates the returned content (CLI command, files and destinations, theme setup) and explains that installed_packages is used to suppress already-present dependencies — valuable since no output schema exists.

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 efficient sentence with zero filler, front-loading the scope ('one or more components') before the enumerated outputs. It reads as an output list rather than an action statement, but nothing is wasted.

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 by naming the four content groups. For a read-only, closed-world lookup with a fully documented schema, nothing essential is missing, though return shape/formatting details are still 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents slugs, package_manager, and installed_packages (including the package.json provenance and de-duplication rationale). The description largely restates that, adding no syntax or format detail 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 what the tool returns for one or more components: the shadcn CLI command, missing npm packages, target files, and theme setup. It is a noun-phrase enumeration rather than a verb+resource statement, and it does not differentiate itself from siblings like get_component_code, which also returns code artifacts.

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 rather than stated: the parenthetical 'pass installed_packages from package.json' is a concrete invocation hint, and 'npm packages still missing' signals this is for post-selection install setup. No when-not-use condition or named alternative 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 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond content — no note on completeness of the listing, ordering, or relationship to the component lookup tools it advertises.

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 no filler, and the core resource (categories) is front-loaded. It is terse rather than verbose, though the terseness shades into under-specification.

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 read-only listing the description is minimally adequate, and no output schema exists to explain the return shape. It does not state whether returned components are summaries or full records, which is the one piece of information an agent would need to decide between this and get_component.

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. There is nothing for the description to clarify about inputs, and it correctly does not invent any.

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 categories) and adds that each entry covers the components offered in it, which goes slightly beyond the title. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, and it is ambiguous whether it returns full component records or only category structure — a distinction that matters given the get_component and search_components 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 statement of when to use this tool versus get_component, search_components, or get_template. The agent is left to infer that this is a browsing/entry-point tool rather than a lookup tool.

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.