查询组件详细规范

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates a read-like operation (query) but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a simple lookup, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core functionality efficiently. It is front-loaded with the verb '查询' (query) and the resource '组件使用规范'. No unnecessary words.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a straightforward lookup operation.

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% with parameter componentName described with examples. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: query component usage specifications by component name, listing what is returned (usage specs, required props, prohibited usages, examples). It differentiates from sibling tools like build_component_prompt or list_component_rules by focusing on specific rule retrieval.

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 implies usage when needing component-specific rules but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or context.

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