check_component_imports

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions scanning code and catching non-existent/misspelled tags, but does not explain the output format (e.g., list of errors, warnings) or side effects. Lack of output schema further amplifies this gap. The description is adequate but not thorough.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loading the primary action and purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is efficient and contains no filler.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description covers main functions and usage context. However, it lacks details on output behavior, error handling, and performance implications. This makes it adequate but not fully complete.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 that the tool scans HTML/JSX/template code for custom element tags and verifies their existence in the loaded Custom Elements Manifest (CEM). It also specifies that it catches non-existent components and misspelled tags with fuzzy suggestions. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like check_html_usage or check_composition, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 advises using the tool 'to verify that generated code only references real components', which provides clear when-to-use guidance. However, it does not mention when not to use it or compare with alternative tools (e.g., check_html_usage), leaving some room for ambiguity.

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