get_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the dual behavior (overview vs specific component) which is useful. However, it does not mention what the output format is, whether authentication is required, or how invalid names are handled. For a documentation lookup tool, this is acceptable but not rich.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that convey the purpose, usage, and examples. Every word earns its place, and it is well-structured with a clear distinction between the two parameter states.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential behavior and usage. It lacks explicit information about the return format or error behavior, but for a documentation tool this is unlikely to confuse an agent. The description is sufficiently complete for most invocations.

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's 'name' parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds meaningful context by explaining that omitting the parameter yields an overview and including it yields a specific component. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, so the baseline of 3 is raised to 4.

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: it provides documentation for MAX UI components. It specifies two modes: without parameters it returns a library overview, and with a parameter it returns a specific component (Button, Input, Avatar.Container, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_endpoint and get_guide.

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 gives clear usage instructions: call without parameters for an overview, or pass a component name to get details. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or list exclusions, but the context makes the intended use evident.

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