Get props

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 is covered structurally. The description adds a cost/efficiency trait ("cheaper than get_component"), which is genuinely useful context an annotation cannot express. It does not describe output shape or behavior for invalid dot-paths.

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, no filler, with the resource scope front-loaded and the comparative cost note placed last. Every clause earns its place.

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 no output schema, the description covers what is returned (the prop table), the subcomponent addressing mode, and the reason to prefer it. Missing only the relationship to get_helper_props.

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% and both parameters are documented there, including the same "Navbar.Brand" example. The description reinforces the dot-path concept for compound families but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, 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 states the specific resource (the prop table) and its scope (whole component or one part of a compound family), which is more precise than the title alone. It also names and contrasts with sibling get_component. It stops short of differentiating from the closely related get_helper_props, which is also a props-adjacent sibling.

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?

"Cheaper than get_component when the props are all you need" gives an explicit selection rule against an alternative. No exclusions beyond that, and get_helper_props is left unaddressed, so it is not fully complete.

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