Get Component Events

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, lowering the burden on the description. The description adds the word 'all' and event examples, but does not disclose return format, potential empty results, or any filtering behavior. This is adequate 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that conveys the action, resource, and examples without wasted words. It earns a high score for being concise yet informative.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and the examples clarify the meaning of callback events. It could mention return format, but the implied return (the events themselves) is adequate for most use cases. A score of 4 reflects the small gap.

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 single 'component' parameter, including an example. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, justifying the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Get') and identifies the resource ('callback events') with concrete examples (onClose, onClick). It distinguishes this from sibling tools like get_component_props by focusing on events rather than properties.

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 clearly indicates the tool is for retrieving callback events for a component, but provides no explicit alternatives or exclusions. While siblings like get_component_props imply different use cases, the description does not state when to choose this tool over them.

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