get_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the return value is HTML code, which is genuinely useful behavioral information. However, it says nothing about whether that is a full file or a fragment, whether dependencies/markup context are included, or how a missing component is reported.

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?

A single sentence with the action and resource front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be cut without losing information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the essentials are present. Gaps remain around name discovery (how to obtain a valid component name) and the shape of the returned HTML, which an agent would need to use the result confidently.

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 schema itself gives format examples including the optional category prefix, so the parameter is already fully documented. The description adds nothing beyond that, which is the baseline 3 case for high coverage.

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 payload ("Get HTML code") plus the resource ("a specific Basecoat component"), which clearly separates it from list_components and search_components. It does not explicitly name those siblings as alternatives, so it stops short of a 5.

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 word "specific" implies this is a known-name lookup rather than a discovery tool, but the description never says when to use it instead of search_components/list_components, nor what to do if the name is unknown. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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