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

No annotations are provided, but the description transparently explains that the tool 'returns' data, indicating a read-only operation. It does not mention side effects or prerequisites, but for a simple getter this is adequate.

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, consisting of two sentences that convey the purpose and benefit without unnecessary detail or 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?

The description fully explains the output (component, design tokens, guide) and the practical outcome, but does not specify error handling or output schema details, which are not strictly necessary.

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?

Both parameters are covered in the schema with clear descriptions and examples ('Komponentenname, z. B. ...' and 'Style-Slug aus list_styles'), exceeding the baseline for full 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 that the tool returns a component along with design tokens and a customization guide, distinguishing it from siblings like get_component and get_style.

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 when to use it (when you need a component styled with brand tokens) and its added value over separate component/style retrieval, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools.

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