Get Component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, which description aligns with. Adds value by specifying that it-* props apply only to web components, not BSI HTML. Does not introduce contradictions or require additional disclosure.

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, each adding essential information: first states core function, second clarifies scope. No unnecessary words, front-loaded with key action.

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 presence of output schema (so return values not needed), full schema coverage, and annotations, description is complete. It covers purpose, usage hints, and a behavioral nuance. Adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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%, so description adds no new meaning beyond schema. Both parameters have adequate descriptions; description repeats schema text without augmentation. 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?

Description clearly states returns HTML markup for component variants and web component props, with specific verb 'Returns' and resources. Differentiates from sibling tools like get_component_variant by saying 'Start here' and referencing the sibling for additional variants.

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?

Explicitly says 'Start here for markup and variants' indicating it's the primary entry point, and the maxVariants parameter description directs users to get_component_variant for more variants. Could further clarify when to use get_component_full or others, but cross-reference is present.

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