Describe a component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it promises fidelity of the returned labels/values and ties the tool to a downstream workflow (update_component), which the annotations do not convey.

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?

Two short sentences with no waste; the primary action is front-loaded and the secondary usage hint follows. Every clause earns its place.

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, the description partially compensates by stating what is returned (exact labels and current values), and pagination is covered by the schema's page parameter. It is nearly complete, though it says nothing about how component identity/indexing interacts with pagination across pages.

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% and every parameter (page, index, report_id) is documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or defaulting detail for these parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Show every Setup and Style setting of one component') plus scope ('exact label and current value'), which separates it from the sibling list_components. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like describe_table or list_components, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Gives a clear reason to call it: to learn the labels that update_component and the style options accept, i.e. read-before-write reconnaissance. No when-not guidance or explicit alternative routing is offered, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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