blatui

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully inform about behavior. It states the output (source, dependencies, packages, install command) but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, any required permissions, potential errors, or rate limits. For a simple retrieval tool, the description is marginally adequate but lacks transparency on expected behaviors.

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 sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and output. It contains no filler, every word is informative, and it is appropriately front-loaded.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema or annotations), the description covers the core purpose and output content. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., is it a string, JSON?), error handling, and edge cases like missing components. It is minimally acceptable but not fully 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the unnamed parameter. The description implies 'name' is the component name, but it provides no additional details such as format, constraints, or examples. This is minimal compensation and leaves ambiguity about valid inputs.

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 explicitly states the tool retrieves a component's full Blade source, dependencies, required packages, and install command. This clearly defines the resource and the scope, and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_example (which likely provides example usage) or install_command (which only gives the install command).

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 implies usage when you need comprehensive component details, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like install_command for just the install command or search_registry for discovery. No when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions are mentioned.

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?

No annotations provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It only states what is retrieved, with no mention of side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return format. Minimal transparency.

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?

Single sentence with no wasted words, front-loaded with the active verb. Every element adds 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 no output schema and low schema coverage, the description is too lean. It does not describe return format, error conditions, or the full scope of 'full Blade source'. Incomplete for effective agent usage.

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 0%, yet the description only implies the parameters (kind and name) without explaining their meaning or constraints beyond the enum values. Lacks details on required format or usage.

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 'Get' and the resource 'full Blade source of a block or chart', including components and packages. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'install_command' or 'search_registry', but could be more specific about what 'Blade source' entails.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_component' or 'search_registry'. The description implies usage for obtaining source code but lacks explicit context or preconditions.

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?

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior; it mentions building a command but doesn't clarify if it executes it, side effects, or output format.

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?

Single, direct sentence with no redundant information; highly concise.

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?

Simple tool with one parameter; description covers basic purpose but omits return value, potential side effects, or error conditions.

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?

Only parameter 'names' has 0% schema description coverage; description adds 'one or more components' but lacks specifics on valid component names, format, or constraints.

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?

Description clearly states the verb (build) and resource (php artisan command + packages) for installing components, distinguishing it from siblings like get_component or list_components.

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 guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives; lacks context like prerequisites or scenarios for installation.

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 no annotations, the description must cover behavioral traits. It states the tool lists components and returns title and description, which is adequate for a read-only operation. However, it doesn't mention any edge cases, such as behavior when no components exist or whether results are paginated.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with two clauses, front-loading the main action. Every word is necessary, and no redundant information is present.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: it lists all components with essential fields and optionally filters by category. It is complete for this context.

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 0% with no parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the 'category' parameter is an optional filter. However, it doesn't specify allowed values or format, which could be improved.

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 action: 'List every BlatUI component with its title and one-line description.' It specifies the output fields and mentions optional filtering by category, distinguishing it from siblings like get_component which likely returns details of a single component.

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 implies filtering use case with 'Optionally filter by category,' but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_component or search_registry. No 'when not to use' or recommended context provided.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the search action but lacks details on case sensitivity, partial matching, pagination, result format, or any constraints. This is insufficient for an agent to understand how the tool behaves.

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, concise sentence (12 words) that immediately states the action and scope. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous 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?

Given the lack of output schema and zero annotation coverage, the description should provide more context about return values, search behavior, and edge cases. It omits details on what the search returns (e.g., matched items, relevance scores) and potential limitations.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the 'query' parameter by indicating it matches against name, title, or description. However, it does not explain the 'type' parameter, even though the enum values are hinted at in the text. The description adds partial value but not full clarity.

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 action ('Search') and the resource ('BlatUI components, blocks and charts'), and specifies search fields ('by name, title or description'). It effectively distinguishes the tool from siblings like list_components (which lists all) and get_component (which retrieves a specific one) by implying a text-based search function.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_components or get_component. Usage is implied (search when you have a query), but no exclusions or comparative guidance are provided.

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