get_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of transparency. 'Fetch' implies read-only behavior, and the description discloses return contents including a note if Tailwind-based. It does not cover error cases, caching, or side effects, but for a simple retrieval tool this is reasonably transparent.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose and returns, second gives usage context. No wasted words, front-loaded, and perfectly sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 retrieval tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, returns, and prerequisite usage. It could mention the alternative get_component_preview for preview-only needs, but the current level is complete enough for 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?

The description adds 'by category + id' and the return fields, but the input schema already provides a detailed description for id and an enum for category. Schema coverage is 50%, but the id description is rich and the enum defines allowed values, so the description's additional value is moderate yet adequate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Fetch'), the resource ('full HTML + CSS'), and identification method ('by category + id'). It also enumerates return values (markup, CSS, tags, author, preview URL), distinguishing it from sibling get_component_preview.

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 explicitly says to 'Use after browsing with list_components or search_components', providing a clear precondition and context. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare to alternatives like get_component_preview, but the guidance is sufficient for correct use.

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