get_component_demo

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds useful version/scope context ('shadcn/ui v4'). However, it does not disclose return format, output size, or behavior details beyond what the annotation already signals about safety.

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, front-loaded sentence that conveys the tool's exact purpose. Every word earns its place, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 simple one-parameter read-only tool without an output schema, the description plus annotation provides adequate context: what it returns (demo code), for what (shadcn/ui v4), and safety (readOnlyHint). It could briefly mention the demo format or relationship to get_component, but the low complexity makes the description mostly sufficient.

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% for the single componentName parameter, so the schema already documents the expected input. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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-object pair ('Get demo code') and names the target resource ('shadcn/ui v4 component'). It clearly separates this tool from siblings like get_component and get_component_metadata by emphasizing its purpose is showing usage examples rather than fetching the component itself.

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 intended usage is implied by 'demo code illustrating how a shadcn/ui v4 component should be used,' but no explicit guidance is given about when to choose this over get_component or get_component_metadata. Sibling tools exist, so some direct differentiation would strengthen this dimension.

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