Cerca un componente

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It adds some behavioral guidance (always generate markup with Bootstrap Italia classes, respect accessibility notes), which is useful. However, it doesn't disclose specifics like whether the tool writes markup, mutates state, or its return shape/side effects, which for a read/search operation are less critical but still absent.

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 three sentences and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value (purpose, when-to-use, design-system constraints). It's efficient without being bare-bones minimal. One could argue the last sentence about not substituting tailwind is slightly wordy, but it carries genuine constraint information.

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 search tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is reasonably complete. It specifies the design system version (Bootstrap Italia 2.x), the search scope (name/description/tag), and output expectations (conforming markup with accessibility notes). No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently hints at what the agent should produce. It could mention pagination or result limits, but given the tool's simplicity this is adequate.

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% — the single 'query' parameter is well described in the schema with examples ('bottone', 'menu', 'form', 'avviso', 'card servizio'). The description reinforces the semantic scope (search by name, description, or tag) without duplicating the schema. Per the baseline rule, 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 ('Cerca'/'search') and resource (Bootstrap Italia component by keyword), and adds useful scope: searching by name, description, or tag. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_components (which lists rather than searches) and get_component_code (which retrieves code once you know the id). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from get_webcomponent or list_webcomponents, so sibling differentiation isn't complete.

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 provides clear usage context ('Use this tool when you need to build a UI element and don't know the exact id') and gives explicit exclusions ('Don't substitute with generic Bootstrap, Tailwind, or non-conforming markup'). It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the when-to-use guidance is concrete and actionable for the agent.

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