get_local_components

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: it returns a structured object, recursively scans a subtree, and only includes local components/sets. It also discloses what data each result type carries (variantProperties, variantGroupProperties, variant component ids), which helps the agent understand the operation's side-effect-free, read-only nature and output shape.

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 dense sentences, each earning its place: the first states the purpose and return shape, the second explains scope and usage, and the third details the data carried by components and component sets. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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 specifies the return structure ({ components, componentSets }) and the attributes of each component type. It also explains the nodeId selection fallback, making the tool's behavior complete for a one-parameter read-only operation.

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 schema already covers the single parameter nodeId with a clear description ('Root node id to scan within; omit to use the current selection'), giving 100% schema coverage. The description reinforces the 'pass nodeId or select frames' behavior but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names a precise resource ('components and component sets within a node subtree or the current selection'). It clearly distinguishes itself from document-wide scanning tools by emphasizing 'Scans a subtree, not the whole document', which differentiates it from siblings like scan_components or component_map.

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: it scans a subtree rather than the whole document, with two ways to scope the operation ('pass nodeId, or select the frames to scan'). It stops short of explicitly naming alternative tools for whole-document scans, but the 'not the whole document' note effectively communicates when not to use it.

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