setup_component_library

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It does not specify if the tool modifies existing files, creates a new project directory, or if it is destructive. It mentions 'config files, dependencies, and initial components' but omits side effects like overwriting or npm install behavior (though a skipInstall parameter exists).

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, focused sentence that front-loads key purpose. It is concise, though a slightly more structured format (e.g., listing what it includes) could improve clarity for a tool with 10 parameters.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain the outcome (e.g., what is created, path structure), nor does it address when to use it in a workflow. Sibling tools like 'validate_component_library_setup' hint at missing context.

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%, so the schema already documents all 10 parameters. The description lists example libraries but does not add meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining complex parameters like 'patterns' or 'customizations'. Thus, it meets baseline 3 without additional value.

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 verb 'Set up' and the resource 'complete project with a component library', listing specific libraries as examples. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'generate_component_library', which could be similar.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'generate_component_library'. It lacks prerequisites, context (e.g., new vs. existing project), and exclusions, leaving ambiguity for the agent.

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