Get component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains what each include payload contains ('meta' full record, 'preview' thumbnail and demo URL, 'prompt' self-contained brief, 'source' actual files plus integration note) and the default combination. This goes beyond a generic fetch and gives the agent a concrete model of the tool's behavior.

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 four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence adds value. It avoids fluff and repetition, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 absence of an output schema and annotations, the description does a good job of explaining the return payloads and the 'include' options. It lacks details on edge cases like invalid slugs or error handling, but for a fetch-by-slug tool with moderate complexity, the description covers the essential behavior.

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?

While the schema already describes both parameters, the description adds substantial meaning by detailing the enum values for 'include' and providing the default. For example, it explains that 'prompt' is a self-contained brief to rebuild faithfully and 'source' includes actual files. This enriches the agent's understanding beyond the schema's terse 'Which payloads to return.'

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 starts with 'Fetch one component by slug,' which is a specific verb+resource that clearly states the tool's function. It distinguishes this from sibling tools that list or search components, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on the 'include' parameter and explicitly advises to add 'source' when the real code is needed. It implies that this tool is for retrieving a known component, but it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_components or list_components. No explicit exclusions, but enough guidance for typical use.

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