Angular: component contract

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Reads the source' indicating a read-only operation, and 'ngserver is not needed' describing a key dependency trait. This is valuable context beyond the schema, though it stops short of detailing error handling or return behavior.

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 core purpose. The first sentence lists what the contract includes, and the second covers accepted inputs and a key behavioral note. Every sentence contributes value with no unnecessary detail.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, input types, and a key behavioral trait (ngserver not needed). It is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it, though it omits potential edge cases like file-not-found behavior.

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 schema already fully describes the only parameter 'file' with 'Path to the component (.ts) or to its template (.html)', giving 100% coverage. The description repeats this by saying 'Accepts .ts or .html', adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 provides the public contract of a component or directive, listing specific elements (inputs, outputs, class members, decorator metadata). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ng_template_definition and ng_find_usages, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 useful context: it accepts .ts or .html files and reads source without needing ngserver. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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