Get Component Guide

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it flags devKitUrlMismatch in warnings when the Dev Kit doc URL diverges, and notes that Storybook entries are included 'when available'. This discloses conditional behavior and special warning flags, going well beyond the annotation.

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, dense sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose ('Returns usage guidelines') and efficiently packs the list of returned content and a special warning behavior. Every clause adds value with no 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?

Given the tool returns a rich guide with multiple sections and the output schema exists, the description sufficiently sets expectations by naming the main sections and the warning flag. It does not over-explain return formats, relying on the output schema.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, and the schema description already explains it with examples. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Returns usage guidelines for a component from Designers Italia website' and lists specific content (whenToUse, howToUse, accessibility, library status, Storybook entry). This specific verb+resource distinguishes it from siblings like bsi_get_component_markup or tokens_list_component_vars.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool (when you need usage guidelines for a component) by enumerating the returned sections. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, though the context is clear and no exclusions are stated.

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