Get component documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile needs no restating. The description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot convey: the default return set (import, summary, prop table) and the fact that extra sections are opt-in via `include`.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core return contract is front-loaded and the optional-extension hint follows it, so nothing is wasted.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns and does so adequately by naming the three default sections and the optional ones. It is slightly thin on the shape of the response (e.g. how the import statement is formatted), but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the default `["props"]` and the example format for `name`. The description reinforces that `include` adds sections but adds no syntax or semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline 3.

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 resource (one component) and enumerates the returned content (import statement, summary, prop table), which is more concrete than a bare 'get component'. It does not explicitly name siblings like get_props or get_examples, so the agent must infer that this is the aggregate entry point rather than a single-section tool.

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 second sentence tells how to widen the result via `include`, which implicitly signals this tool can subsume get_props/get_examples/get_css_variables. However, it never states when to prefer the narrower sibling tools or when to use this one over list_components, so usage is implied rather than directed.

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