get_component

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

No annotations provided. The description declares the tool returns 'full metadata' but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., missing tag), behavior with default vs. explicit library, or if any side effects exist. Adequate but unexceptional.

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?

Single sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with action and resource. No redundant content. Efficient.

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?

No output schema, so description must explain return content. It lists key categories (members, events, etc.), which covers the main expected output. However, lacks mention of attributes or description field, and could better differentiate from siblings. Still fairly complete for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it just restates 'tag name'). Baseline 3 applies.

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 'Get' and resource 'full metadata for a web component', and enumerates specific categories (members, events, etc.). It distinguishes from sibling tools that retrieve specific aspects (e.g., list_events, get_component_dependencies).

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus the many specialized siblings (e.g., get_component_dependencies, list_slots). The agent is left to infer that this returns everything, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative suggestions.

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