Get component documentation

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what the default response contains and that a dot-path returns only that sub-part, which an agent could not derive from the annotations.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the primary return payload, then the optional expansion, then the edge case. Every sentence carries distinct 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 simple two-parameter read tool with full annotations and no output schema, the description covers default content, optional sections, and dot-path resolution. The one missing piece is routing guidance against the overlapping get_props/get_examples/get_css_variables siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters including the dot-path format and the include default. The description's dot-path example and include enumeration largely restate that, adding only marginal value, so baseline 3 applies.

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 names a concrete verb+resource ('Import statement, summary and prop table for one component') and clarifies the dot-path case. It is clear on its own, but it never contrasts itself with closely overlapping siblings like get_props, get_examples, or get_css_variables, so an agent must infer which entry point to prefer.

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 through 'Add `include` for examples, CSS variables, accessibility notes or related components' and the dot-path note, which hints at when to use the extra sections. However, there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternative guidance despite siblings get_props/get_examples/get_css_variables covering the same ground.

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