Get Component

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

readOnlyHint=true already communicates safety; the description adds value by naming the returned fields (queue, lead, assignAuto, version) and noting the version is the one component_update consumes. It does not cover missing-id error behavior, but for a simple read with annotations this is a useful and non-redundant disclosure.

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 dense sentence front-loads the action and resource, then packs the id source, returned fields, and compatibility with component_update. Every clause contributes useful information with no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only getter with an output schema and sibling context, the description is complete: it explains what is returned, where the id comes from, and how the result relates to component_update. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents component_id as numeric and from queue_get_components or an issue's components field. The description repeats this rather than adding new parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (Get), identifies the resource (one Yandex Tracker queue component) and gives the exact identifier type. It distinguishes itself from queue_get_components by emphasizing 'one' component by numeric id, and the sibling list/create/update/delete tools are clearly different operations.

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?

It clearly states the input required (numeric component id) and where ids come from (queue_get_components or an issue's components field), which tells an agent how to obtain a valid input. It does not explicitly state 'use queue_get_components for listing' or list exclusion cases, so it stops short of a full when-to-use/when-not-to-use guide.

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