Find Components By Token

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses important behavioral nuances: indirect impact via resolution chain, accepted token formats, and the fact that components reflect BSI's internal grouping keys rather than canonical names. This adds significant context and helps the agent set expectations.

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 well-structured sentences. The first states the primary purpose, the second explains input formats and typical use case, and the third provides a key caveat. It is information-dense without fluff, making it appropriately sized and front-loaded.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It covers the tool's scope, input variations, indirect impact, theming use case, and a subtle but important caveat about component naming. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, so the description need not repeat basic syntax. However, it adds semantic value by explaining the distinction between direct usage (--bsi-*) and indirect impact traced through the chain (--it-*/$it-*), which is not clear from the schema alone.

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's function with a specific verb ('Returns the Bootstrap Italia components impacted by a given design variable') and distinguishes it from related tools like dsi_list_components by explaining the internal grouping key caveat. This exceeds basic clarity and explicitly differentiates from siblings.

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 usage context: it accepts different token forms and is 'useful for theming.' It also implicitly contrasts with dsi_list_components by warning about grouping key differences, offering guidance on when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use the tool, so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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