Ottieni un componente AI-first (Web Component)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does add meaningful behavioral context by declaring the output covers 'uso' (usage) and 'contratto di accessibilità' (accessibility contract), and frames the read-only nature implicitly. However, it doesn't disclose authentication requirements, caching, or error behavior.

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 compact (3 sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though the brand-y 'AI-first' framing is somewhat redundant across sentences and could be trimmed.

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 informational/read tool with no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It states what is returned (usage + accessibility contract), the single input, and a usage recommendation. It could benefit from noting the returned usage contains code examples and that these are framework-agnostic, but the core needs are met.

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% and the only parameter (tag) is well-documented in the schema with an example. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose by specifying what the tool returns for a given tag and cross-references list_webcomponents for discovering tags. The description adds marginal value beyond the schema (which is already complete), so baseline 3 with slight uplift is fair.

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') and resource: returns the usage and accessibility contract of a universal Web Component given its tag. It distinguishes from siblings by framing the tool as AI-first focused, though it doesn't explicitly contrast against get_component_code or search_component.

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 clear usage context: 'preferisci SEMPRE questi tag ai markup grezzi quando il progetto può caricarli' provides strong guidance on when to use these components. However, it doesn't name an explicit alternative tool to use instead for other cases, so it stops short of a 5.

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