get_component_guidance

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

No annotations are provided. The description states it 'combines component specs with real-world patterns observed in top apps and websites,' but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether results are cached, any limitations, or authentication needs. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is only moderately transparent.

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 somewhat verbose with a long parenthetical list of examples. It could be more concise and front-loaded. The key verb 'Expert guidance' comes first, but the sentence structure could be improved.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity (2 params), the description adequately explains what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the format or structure of the returned guidance, which would help an agent invoke it correctly.

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 is 100% (both parameters have descriptions). The description adds context that guidance combines specs with real-world patterns, but this does not significantly enhance meaning beyond the parameter descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 explicitly states it provides 'expert guidance for designing a specific UI component or screen pattern' and lists concrete examples (button, form, navigation, etc.). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_design_examples (which likely provides examples) and get_design_doc (which might be documentation).

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 implies use for UI component guidance but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_design_examples or search_design_knowledge. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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