get-component-details

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the tool returns detailed information with source attribution but does not mention potential side effects, authentication requirements, error handling (e.g., if component not found), or any limitations. The read-only nature is implied but not confirmed.

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, clear sentence with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing conciseness, e.g., specifying that it returns a single component's metadata.

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?

The tool has 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is too minimal to cover the complexity. It does not explain what 'source attribution' means, how parameters like 'includeInternal' affect results, or the relationship with sibling tools. An agent would have incomplete context to use it effectively.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter clearly. The description adds no extra meaning or context beyond what is in the schema. For example, it does not clarify how 'sourceOnly' interacts with 'includeInternal' or what 'source attribution' means. Baseline 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 it retrieves detailed information about a specific component with source attribution. The verb 'get' and resource 'component details' are specific, and it differentiates from sibling 'list-components' by focusing on a single component. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from 'get-content-sources' or 'get-sail-guidance', leaving some ambiguity about what 'detailed information' includes.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., list-components, get-sail-guidance). It does not indicate prerequisites, when not to use it, or how it fits with other tools. An agent would need to infer usage from the name and schema, which is not explicit.

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