Conduit

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

Annotations provide rich behavioral hints (readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false, edgeCaseWarnings), so the bar is lower. The description adds value by specifying the return format ('Array of objects... with type: text and text field as JSON'), which isn't covered in annotations, enhancing transparency about output structure. No contradiction with 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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise returns section. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (4 parameters, read-only operation) and rich annotations covering safety, idempotency, and edge cases, the description is largely complete. It specifies sources and return format, though it could benefit from more detail on pagination behavior or error handling. No output schema exists, but the description adequately describes returns.

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 clear descriptions for all parameters (e.g., 'after' for pagination, 'source' with enum values). The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, such as explaining interactions between parameters (e.g., how 'team_id' relates to 'source'). Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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') and resource ('components') with specific sources ('current document, a team library, or remote team libraries'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_node_info' or 'get_variant' that also retrieve document elements, missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage by listing the three source options, but doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_node_info' for specific component details or 'create_component_instance' for component creation. The annotations include edge cases (e.g., 'team_id is required for team source'), which adds some context but isn't fully integrated into the description itself.

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