get_component

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

The tool name and description imply a read-only operation without side effects, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is safe or what the response format will be. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the burden but remains 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?

The description is concise, consisting of one functional sentence and a usage note. It is well-structured and directly addresses the tool's purpose without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

The description provides sufficient context for a simple retrieval tool, indicating the source (GovBR Design System) and the condition for use (knowing the component). It does not detail the output structure, but given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the operation, it is adequately complete.

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 only parameter 'name' is defined in the schema with type and minLength but no description. The tool description implies that 'name' should be the component name, but does not provide explicit format or examples. The parameter semantics are only partially conveyed.

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 retrieves complete official documentation for a specific GovBR Design System component, and explicitly notes it should be used when the component name is already known, distinguishing it from the sibling tools list_components and search_docs.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use quando já souber qual componente GovBR-DS precisa consultar.' This clearly indicates it is for direct retrieval by name, contrasting with listing or searching.

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