components_get_properties

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it 'gets properties' and includes default values/configuration, but does not explain pagination via limit/offset, locale handling, or whether results are a list or object. It also doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, though 'Get' implies it.

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 a single, focused sentence that leads with the verb and object, containing no redundant information. It is appropriately concise for the tool's purpose.

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?

Despite having no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain the expected return structure, the significance of the limit/offset parameters, or the role of localeId in localization. The presence of multiple optional parameters suggests complexity that the single sentence does not address.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage, with descriptions for all five parameters including limit, offset, site_id, localeId, and component_id. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying the tool gets 'component properties including default values and configuration,' so it meets the baseline but does not exceed schema information.

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's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('component properties'), including scope ('for a specific component') and content ('default values and configuration'). This effectively distinguishes it from sibling tools like components_get_content and components_update_properties.

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 for retrieving properties of a specific component but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives such as components_get_content or components_update_properties. No exclusions or alternative references are given, leaving the decision to inference.

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