get_component_info

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so no side effects need restating. The description adds useful behavioral context about scope: it inspects the current project to report installed status, and it returns dependencies/files rather than just a list. This goes beyond the structured fields.

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?

One dense sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause (dependencies, files, installed status) adds information. No 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?

With one required string parameter, rich examples in the schema, and read-only/idempotent annotations, the description explains the central output facets. It doesn't define the return shape or behavior for unknown component names, but this is a minor gap for such a simple lookup 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('shadcn/ui component'), and the exact facets returned (dependencies, files, installed status). This distinguishes it from sibling list/search tools and the mutating add/remove tools.

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 when to use the tool – when detailed per-component info like dependencies or install state is needed – but it never names alternatives or exclusion conditions. An agent must infer the boundary against list_components/search_components/list_installed from the verb and facets alone.

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