get_component_details

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

The annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, which the description aligns with by using 'Get' (implying a read operation). The description adds context by specifying the types of identifiers accepted (catalog identity or UUID), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or output format, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, read-only per annotations) and lack of output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It does not explain what 'detailed information' includes or potential response formats, which could hinder the agent's ability to use the tool effectively without trial and error.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'part_id' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal semantics by clarifying that 'part_id' can be a catalog identity (e.g., 'BridgeDeck') or a UUID, but this is redundant with the schema's description. Thus, it meets the baseline without significant added value.

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 verb ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a component type by catalog identity or a game part by UUID'), making the purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_sizes' or 'get_game_catalog', which might also retrieve component-related information, so it lacks sibling distinction for a perfect score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, such as needing authentication, or compare it to siblings like 'get_component_sizes' or 'get_game_catalog', leaving the agent without context for selection.

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