get_component

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description fully describes behavior: read-only, no side effects, returns JSON with source provenance/props/variants, and error listing available components if not found. No contradictions.

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 sentences that are front-loaded with purpose and safety. Every sentence adds value: action, safety, return format, usage guidance, and alternative. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool, no output schema, and missing annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: action, safety, return content, error handling, and use cases. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'by name' but adds no additional details about format, case sensitivity, or matching behavior. It provides minimal value beyond the schema's property type.

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 looks up a specific component by name, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly mentioning get_design_context as an alternative for listing all component names.

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 states when to use (need implementation details for a known component to reuse) and when not (for list of names, use get_design_context). Provides clear context for decision-making.

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