get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return payload (description, public mixins with signature/summary/body, source path), which is genuinely useful context, but it says nothing about failure behavior for unknown names, lookup exactness, or cost of returning full bodies.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action and payload list, with zero filler. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description usefully enumerates what is returned, which is the main thing an agent needs here. It falls short only on not-found behavior and lookup matching rules, which are minor for a one-parameter getter.

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% for the single required 'name' parameter, and the schema already supplies examples ('buttons', 'overlay', 'forms'). The description adds nothing beyond it, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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?

A specific verb-plus-resource: 'Return one component' with an enumerated payload. The word 'one' implicitly separates it from list_components and search_components, but it never names those siblings, so the differentiation is by inference rather than statement.

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?

Usage is only implied by the singular 'one component' versus the sibling list_components/search_components. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no statement of what to do when the name is unknown.

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