find_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that matching components are returned with props and state, but does not clarify whether it searches mounted instances or component definitions, nor mention side effects, ordering, or edge cases like empty results. This leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.

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 highly concise: two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and a brief output summary. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It covers the purpose and basic output, but lacks context about when to use it instead of sibling tools, and does not explain the structure of returned components beyond 'props and state.' Given the absence of an output schema, more detail would improve completeness.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage for the only parameter, including a clear description ('case-insensitive substring match'). The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Find React components by name' with a specific verb and resource. It also briefly mentions the output ('matching components with their props and state'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_react_tree or get_component_state, which also deal with React component information.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, such as get_react_tree, get_component_state, or collect_component_instances. The description does not provide any context for tool selection.

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