Get Component Markup

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

With readOnlyHint annotation already declaring the tool as safe/read-only, the description adds the behavior of defaulting to the first variant when omitted. It does not disclose error handling, output format details, or any edge cases, but the annotation reduces the burden. This is consistent with a moderate score.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value—returning markup, default behavior, and a pointer to a sibling tool. No fluff or redundancy.

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 read-only tool with only two parameters and an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It clarifies the default variant behavior and how to discover variants. Slightly more detail on error cases or output structure could push it to 5, but the existing context is adequate.

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%, and both 'component' and 'variant' are well-documented in the schema. The description repeats the default-variant behavior already present in the schema, adding no additional parameter meaning. Baseline 3 applies here.

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 'Returns' and the resource 'HTML markup for one specific variant of a Bootstrap Italia component', making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool by pointing to bsi_list_component_variants for discovering variant names, which sets it apart from listing tools.

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 clear guidance on when to use this tool: for getting markup for a specific variant, and explicitly tells the user to use bsi_list_component_variants to discover available names. It lacks an explicit exclusion or comparison with devkit_get_component_markup, but the reference to the variant-discovery sibling covers the main alternative usage.

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