Get an evo-web component definition

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

Annotations already cover read-only and closed-world behavior, and the description adds real value on top by disclosing that the payload is a 'Full definition' with a default section set and that accessibility, CSS, sitePage and changelog are opt-in. It does not say what happens for an unrecognized or deprecated component name, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the resource and payload scope, then the name-normalization rule. The parenthetical item lists are dense but each item carries information an agent cannot get from the schema, so little could be cut without loss.

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 shoulders the burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly, including the opt-in sections. Missing only failure behavior (unknown component) and any note on payload size for 'all', which matters for a tool that can return CSS and changelog alongside types.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description beats it: it clarifies that 'name' accepts plain ('button'), prefixed ('evo-button'), angle-bracketed ('<evo-button>') and Marko 5 alias ('ebay-button') forms, which goes beyond the schema's own examples. The 'sections' parameter is not discussed in the description, but its enum and default are fully documented in the schema.

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 resource ('Full definition of one evo-web Marko 6 component') and enumerates exactly what the definition contains (attributes, attribute tags, usage examples, TS types, optional accessibility/CSS/changelog). It never names a sibling such as list_components or search_docs, so the boundary with those tools is left to inference.

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?

Usage is implied by the enumeration of return content, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion against list_components (browse) or search_docs (free-text lookup), and no stated behavior when a name is unknown. The accepted-name sentence helps invocation but is not a routing guideline.

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