Get Component Options

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

Goes well beyond the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint annotations: it discloses that the lookup executes with the owning component's credentials (an auth requirement), that no `transform` is applied so results are the auxiliary component's raw output, and that pointer strings like "properties/event" mean "send that property's value". The remaining gap is return shape and pagination behavior, which matters somewhat for an open-world read.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, but the parameter-routing advice and the pointer-string note are packed into long em-dash-chained sentences that require re-reading. Every clause carries information, yet the density costs scannability.

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 6-parameter, nested-object tool with no output schema, the description covers the hard parts: where the type/port arguments originate, credential semantics, and the fact that transforms are not applied so the caller must pick the identifier the target field expects. Only the shape of the returned option list and limit behavior are left implicit.

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 already 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: it says component_type and out_port come from the source URL (often a different, auxiliary component) and that component_id must be the field owner already present in a flow. It does not explain `limit`, `messages`, or `properties` beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a precise verb+resource pair ("Resolve a field's dynamic options at runtime") and immediately scopes it to fields whose manifest declares a `source` URL, with concrete examples (Slack channel pickers, spreadsheet lists, generated output variables). No sibling tool does this, and an agent can tell it apart from get_components or trigger_component without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear trigger condition (the manifest declares a `source` URL) plus prerequisites for calling: the owning component must already exist in a flow and, for connected services, have an account assigned. It also explains how to derive two of the arguments from the source URL. It stops short of naming a sibling alternative or stating when not to use this tool.

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