Get a WunderUI component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does useful work by disclosing the breadth of what is looked up — the argument also resolves hooks, providers and utilities (useToast, ThemeProvider), not just components — and it implies a read-only retrieval. It does not say what happens on an unknown name (error vs empty result) or whether results are cached/versioned.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first clause and the rest is a dense but scannable inventory of return contents. It is a long single sentence, but with no output schema the inventory earns its space; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description must describe return shape, and it does so thoroughly (props table fields, anatomy, CSS variables, import line, docs link). The remaining gap is behavioral rather than structural: no error/miss handling and no guidance relative to list_components.

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%, so the 'name' accepted formats (export name, slug, title) are already documented in the schema and the description adds nothing there. It does slightly extend the semantics by revealing that the identifier can also target hooks, providers and utilities, which the schema does not say.

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 opening clause 'Everything needed to use one component correctly' plus the enumeration (exported names, prop signature, anatomy, CSS variables, import line) makes it unambiguous that this is a per-component documentation lookup. It is distinguishable from list_components by implication, but the description never names the sibling or states the contrast explicitly.

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: an agent infers 'call this when you already know which component you want.' There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no reference to list_components as the discovery path before calling this one.

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