get_component_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It mentions the types of information returned (props, slots, examples) but lacks details on format, limitations, or whether any actions are performed. For a read-only informational tool, this is acceptable but minimal.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that conveys the tool's purpose and key outputs without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. Sibling tools provide context for differentiation. Minor gap: no mention of return structure or depth of examples.

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?

There is only one parameter (componentName) and the schema already provides a clear description of its purpose. The tool description adds no further parameter context, but schema coverage is 100%, so a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool gets comprehensive information about a Fluent UI component, listing specific aspects (props, slots, examples). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component_props and get_component_examples which serve narrower purposes.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. While the description implies it's for broad info gathering, it doesn't specify when not to use it (e.g., when only props are needed). Siblings exist but no comparison is drawn.

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