get_stellify_framework_api

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

With no annotations, the description details the return content: composables with options/returns, utilities with methods/staticMethods, and validation rules. It also mentions that each item includes summary, type signatures, and JSDoc descriptions, and that Collection is iterable with v-for. This provides good behavioral insight.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and import, followed by return types and item details. Every sentence adds value, with no fluff.

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 schema and lack of output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns and its structure. It could mention the return format but is sufficiently complete for its complexity.

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 description adds value by listing example module names (useAuth, Collection) that complement the schema's examples, giving the agent a concrete understanding of the optional parameter.

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 retrieves the Stellify Framework API reference with full type signatures. It specifies the imported package and lists return types (composables, utilities, validation rules), distinguishing it from sibling tools that deal with project elements.

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 implies usage for framework API reference but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_method or get_file. No exclusions or when-not guidance provided.

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