Ottieni il codice di un componente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It states the tool generates compliant markup and respects accessibility notes, adding behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose whether there are constraints like unsupported components, validation requirements, or rate limits. With no annotations, some more behavioral disclosure would help.

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 brief and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. Every sentence earns its place, including the negative guidance about not substituting non-conformant markup.

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 single-parameter, read-style retrieval tool with complete schema coverage and an output that is markup + notes, the description is reasonably complete. The design-system constraint and accessibility requirement are stated. A minor gap: it doesn't mention what happens for a non-existent component id.

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 coverage is 100% (single id parameter, described with example and pointer to list_components for valid ids). The description adds design-system context that the schema lacks. Since there's one simple param, the description adds marginal but useful value beyond the schema.

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 (restituisce/returns) and resource (component markup and accessibility notes for a Bootstrap Italia component given its id). It distinguishes the design system (Bootstrap Italia 2.x). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_webcomponent or list_components, though the focus on 'markup + accessibility notes' partially helps.

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 gives implicit guidance by naming the design system (Bootstrap Italia) and instructing not to substitute with generic Bootstrap/Tailwind. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs sibling get_webcomponent or search_component, which could overlap. Usage context is implied rather than explicit.

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