get_component_context

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation but says nothing about selection fallback behavior (nodeId is optional), truncation when maxBytes/maxNodes budgets are hit, or whether screenshots are included; those limits are only implicit in the schema bounds.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's five parameters and missing behavioral context.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves major gaps: return shape, default behavior, selection fallback and truncation semantics are all unstated. What the description needs to carry, it does not.

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 60%: nodeId, profile and maxBytes are documented, but depth and maxNodes have no description anywhere. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the undocumented traversal and node-count parameters.

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?

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('component, component set or instance properties and descendants'), so the scope is clear. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_design_context or get_metadata, which appear to overlap.

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?

No indication of when this should be used instead of get_design_context, get_metadata or get_motion_context. The agent must infer the choice from the name alone, and the one bit of guidance present ('summary for discovery; full preserves detailed fields') lives in the schema, not the description.

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