get_decorator_reference

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses what the reference includes (signatures, idiomatic examples, anti-patterns), which is useful. However, it doesn't specify the return format or behavior when the optional parameter is omitted; these details are left to the schema, which is acceptable for a simple read-only reference 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?

The description is one sentence, front-loaded with the main action, and every element contributes (scope, content, anti-patterns). No redundant or filler wording.

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?

This is a low-complexity reference tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description explains what information will be provided, and the schema covers parameter behavior. The only minor gap is the unspecified return structure, but that does not impede correct invocation.

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% for the single optional parameter, providing clear semantics. The description adds value by enumerating valid decorator names (e.g., @Component, @Prop), reinforcing the expected input values beyond the schema's generic 'decorator name' phrasing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get accurate reference') and clearly identifies the resource (StencilJS decorators), explicitly listing the decorator names covered. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_lifecycle_reference and get_best_practices, which target different StencilJS aspects.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool (when you need decorator references) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The domain is unambiguous enough that an agent would correctly select this over lifecycle or best-practices tools, but explicit contrast would strengthen the guidance.

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