Get an appCN component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the return content in detail but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or disclose any side effects, permissions, or rate limits. The description is adequate but lacks explicit behavioral cues.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and includes a usage hint. While the first sentence is somewhat long, it efficiently packs all necessary information with no redundancy.

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 simple parameter set and no output schema, the description is self-contained, explaining what is returned (docs, source files, dependencies, install command). It provides enough context for an agent to understand the tool's utility, though it could explicitly state it is read-only.

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 has one parameter (slug) with clear description and 100% coverage. The description does not add extra semantic information beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 it returns 'everything an agent needs to add and correctly use one appCN component,' including docs, source files, dependencies, and install command. It distinguishes from siblings like list_components and search_components by focusing on a single component's full details.

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 advises preferring the install command over manual copying, providing a clear usage guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare it to siblings like get_install_command, though context implies its role.

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