Get Component Guidance

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful behavioral detail about the output: it 'Returns the most relevant docs in full' and specifies the content categories such as specs, states, sizing, anti-patterns, and real-world patterns.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides outcome details and routing guidance in a compact three-sentence structure. Every sentence contributes distinct information without filler.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description compensates by explicitly describing what will be returned: full relevant docs covering specs, states, sizing, anti-patterns, and real-world patterns. It also covers when to use the tool and how to choose between its closest siblings.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the component parameter with examples but does not add material meaning beyond the schema, especially for the platform parameter.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Get expert guidance for designing one UI component or screen pattern' and gives concrete examples. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming get_component_recipe and get_design_examples.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use when designing a specific element.' It also gives direct alternative tool guidance: 'for copy-paste code use get_component_recipe, for annotated screenshots use get_design_examples.'

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