petal-components-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It describes what the tool returns (full schema, usage example) and clearly signals a read-only operation via the verb 'Get' and the nature of the content. It does not explicitly state side-effect safety or permissions, but for a getter this is adequately transparent.

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 purpose, and includes actionable examples. No wasted words; every sentence 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 the tool is simple (one parameter, fully documented), the description covers the essential context: what the tool returns, why it matters, and when to invoke it. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of return contents.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage, explaining the parameter name without the leading dot and suggesting examples. The description reinforces this with tag examples but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema. Therefore, it sits at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 the full schema for one petal_components component' and enumerates specific contents (attrs, slots, defaults, allowed values, HEEx example). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on a single component's schema rather than listing all components or install instructions.

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 gives strong, explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this every time you are about to write a tag like <.button>, <.modal>, <.table>, or <.field>'. It also provides a rationale ('instead of training-data guesses'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use this tool versus siblings like list_components, so it lacks full exclusion 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?

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It adds useful context by stating the steps cover mix.exs, deps.get, Tailwind v4 CSS config, and web module import, and that the steps are idempotent. This is solid transparency for an informational tool.

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 concise and well-structured: purpose, usage triggers, content overview, and a safety property (idempotency). Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 zero parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, when to use it, what it returns, and a key behavioral trait (idempotency).

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 has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics, and the schema is trivially complete.

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 purpose: 'Get the canonical steps for installing petal_components in a Phoenix project.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from sibling tools like get_component and 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?

The description explicitly says when to call it: when the user asks to install petal_components, setting up a new Phoenix project needing UI components, or verifying an installation. This is clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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 carries the full burden. It clearly implies a read-only list operation with no side effects, but it does not explicitly state the return format, permissions, or any potential limitations. The extra context about being the canonical vocabulary adds value but is not comprehensive.

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, each earning its place: the first states the precise function, the second provides essential usage motivation. There is no fluff or redundancy.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It conveys what the tool does, when to use it, and why it matters, giving the agent a clear mental model for invocation.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema fully covers this with an empty object. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameter semantics to convey; the description does not need to compensate.

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 lists every component shipped by petal_components, specifying the resource and scope. It also positions the tool as the canonical Phoenix UI vocabulary, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_component and get_install_instructions.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'call it before composing any HEEx' to avoid hand-rolling Tailwind divs. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use the tool, so it falls short of the highest bar.

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