get_component_guidance

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly indicates a read-only lookup and enumerates the content areas returned, which is meaningful behavioral context; it does not cover failure or edge-case behavior, but none of those are critical for this lookup shape.

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 front-loads the action and enumerates concrete output categories. No filler or repetition is present.

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 two-parameter lookup with no output schema, the description conveys the return categories and the input schema fully documents the required parameters. It doesn't explain handling of invalid IDs or exact response structure, but that is a minor gap for this simple tool.

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?

Input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline applies. The description adds component examples and the notion of a specific UI element, but it does not add substantial new meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Get guidance') and a specific resource ('canonical component names, import statements, props conventions, accessibility notes, and official documentation links') for a UI element, distinguishing it from system-level sibling tools like get_ui_system and list_ui_systems. Examples such as Button, Dialog, and Table further clarify the target.

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 phrase 'for a specific UI element' gives clear context for when to use this tool, and the output categories make it distinct from system-level siblings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of full 5 guidance.

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