Get Components

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declaring safety, the description adds real value by disclosing what each mode returns (type, description, port names vs. full manifest with input/required fields and output variables) and why that detail matters. It does not cover auth, rate limits, or error behavior, but those are not critical for a read-only inspection 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?

Three tight sentences in a logical order: what it does, no-arg behavior, with-arg behavior, then the caution. Nearly every sentence earns its place; only the opening "Inspect components of an Appmixer app" lightly restates the title.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing returns — and it does for both modes, though the summary contents and manifest shape are only sketched rather than exhaustively specified. For a two-parameter read-only tool, an agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains the behavioral difference between supplying `component` and omitting it, gives the exact fully-qualified format with a concrete example, and ties the parameter to the downstream purpose (building config.transform). The `app` parameter is left to the schema, which already documents it and points to list_apps.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Inspect components of an Appmixer app") and immediately splits the tool into two clearly described modes: summary listing without `component`, full manifest with it. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component_options and list_apps, which do different things.

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?

It states clearly when to call it each way — omit `component` for an overview, supply the full type when you need input fields/output variables to build config.transform. The closing rule "Never guess component types, port names or fields" gives strong positive guidance. It stops short of naming specific alternative tools (get_component_options, list_apps) for adjacent needs, so not a 5.

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