Get component definitions

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: the payload is large, accepts no limit, is platform-wide (same for every company), takes no company id, and its schema is the inventory schema with no metric property names. No contradictions exist.

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 long but every sentence carries meaningful information: purpose, structural details, usage warnings, alternative tool suggestions, and a derived itemType example. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the returned structure (filePath, data block, schema field), the itemType composition rule (filePath + data.itemType), the platform-wide scope, and the large size/no-limit caveat. It also provides alternative tool recommendations. This is highly complete for a read-only metadata tool.

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 already provides a full description of the 'fields' parameter (100% coverage). The description adds practical guidance with a concrete example ('fields' e.g. ['filePath']) and explains why to use it (to keep the response manageable). This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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 explicitly states 'Return the platform-wide component definitions' and describes the exact structure (filePath, data block with fields like modelName, itemType, etc.). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like lumics_get_me and from similar tools like lumics_get_metric_summary and lumics_list_component_types.

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 gives explicit use cases: 'Use this when you need to know what fields a component type has or how it is defined.' It also provides clear exclusions and alternatives, such as 'do NOT use it to find values for a metric tool's properties argument' (use lumics_get_metric_summary) and 'if you only need a valid component type key for this tenant, call lumics_list_component_types instead.'

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