get_component_api

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses meaningful behavior: instances resolve to their main component/set, the exact return shape, and the property naming convention for set_instance_properties. It also notes safety on large files, adding practical context.

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?

Three dense sentences, each earning its place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details the return structure, and the third covers naming semantics and differentiates from get_local_components. No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return object shape, property map types, and naming conventions. It also addresses performance context and input variations, making it complete for practical use.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a genuinely useful nuance beyond the schema: 'an instance resolves to its main component / set'. This extra semantic detail merits a 4.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a component's full property API — the prop contract behind its instances.' It clearly scopes the tool to a single component and explicitly contrasts it with get_local_components, making it easy to distinguish from siblings.

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 explicitly says 'Unlike get_local_components (a subtree inventory), this targets one component and is safe on large files.' This names the alternative and gives a clear when-to-use signal. It also lists accepted id types, further guiding invocation.

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