Get published component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the HTTP method, the endpoint shape, and the required OAuth scope library_assets:read, which are useful behavioral details beyond the annotations.

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 sentence carries the endpoint, resource type, key-type distinction, and auth scope with no filler. The key disambiguation is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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, single-parameter read-only lookup, the description provides enough to select and invoke the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema means some detail about the returned metadata shape is not stated, but the endpoint and scope are sufficient for a metadata fetch.

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% and the schema already fully describes the single key parameter as 'Published component key from library metadata.' The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema, 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 and resource: GET /v1/components/{key} returns metadata for a published component. It differentiates the scope clearly by noting the key is a library key, not a file key, which separates it from sibling tools like get_file_components and get_team_components.

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 makes clear this is for published component keys from library metadata and excludes file keys, giving the agent a usable decision rule. It does not explicitly name alternative tools, but the context is clear enough to route away from file-level or team-level component tools.

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