Get Component Example

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds behavioral context by stating the return is 'full JSX code' and that title search supports partial matches. This is useful but minimal; there is no mention of pagination, limits, or error cases.

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 concise: two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 simple read-only getter, the description adequately conveys that the tool returns JSX code and supports search. There is no output schema, so the description's mention of 'full JSX code' covers the return type. However, it does not clarify that the 'component' parameter is required, which could lead to confusion given the 'search by ID or title' phrase. This minor gap prevents a perfect score.

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%, with all three parameters described. The description adds the note that title supports partial match, which is already in the schema. It does not add additional semantics like how component and example_id interact, so the baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get full JSX code for a specific example.' It uses a specific verb (get) with a clear resource (full JSX code for an example). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component_props or get_component_events, which fetch metadata rather than code.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Search by ID or title (partial match).' It implies that the tool is used when you need the exact JSX for an example, and it explains how to locate the example. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it a step below full guidance.

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