get_slow_components

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 the prerequisite that React Profiler or DevTools must be available, but it does not specify whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, how it handles missing profiler data, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that relies on external integration.

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 a single, focused sentence that states the purpose and a critical requirement. There is no wasted wording, and the most important information (what the tool does) is presented first. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

The tool is simple with two numeric parameters and a clear purpose, and the schema covers the parameters. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not specify the return format or handling of edge cases (e.g., when no components meet the threshold). Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is adequate but leaves room for additional context about expected results.

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% as both parameters (limit and threshold) have descriptions indicating their purpose and defaults. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning. Therefore, 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 uses a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('React components') with a clear criterion ('slow render times'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_render_count, which focuses on render counts rather than performance. The one-sentence description is precise and immediately understandable.

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?

The description implies usage: whenever you need to identify React components with slow render times. It mentions a prerequisite ('Requires React Profiler or DevTools'), which gives some context for when the tool may not be usable, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The guidance is minimal and implied rather than explicit.

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