Détail d'un composant

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not need to cover safety. It adds substantial behavioral context by listing the comprehensive return payload (semantic layer, ontology, example, props/types), which goes beyond the annotation and explains what the agent will receive. No contradiction.

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 compact and front-loaded: one sentence enumerates the detailed content, followed by a direct usage directive. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundant filler, making it highly efficient.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey what is returned, and it does so thoroughly by listing all content categories. It also explains the name format and usage context. Minor gaps exist regarding exact formatting of props/types or error behavior, but for a single-parameter read tool, this is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'name' parameter. The description repeats the accepted alias ('bpm.metric' or 'metric') without adding new semantic meaning beyond the schema, keeping the score at baseline.

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 it returns the complete detail of a component, enumerating the specific content (description, props/types, usage example, associated components, semantic layer). This distinguishes it from siblings list-components and search-components, which are for discovery, making the purpose unambiguous and specific.

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 instructs to use after list/search and before generating code, positioning this tool as the one for obtaining the exact signature and semantic meaning. This gives clear workflow context and implies it is not for initial discovery, effectively differentiating from sibling tools.

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