get_prop_constraints

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

Given no annotations, the description transparently explains the output behavior for union and non-union types. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the tool is read-only and straightforward, so the transparency is adequate.

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 two concise sentences with the purpose front-loaded. Every word adds value, with no redundancy or extraneous information.

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?

For a simple query tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core behavior adequately. However, it could mention the return format or typical responses to be 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context about union versus non-union types, which relates to the attributeName parameter, but does not enhance understanding of libraryId or tagName beyond the schema.

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 tool returns a structured constraint table for a component attribute, with specific behavior for union vs non-union types. It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling audit/check tools by focusing on attribute constraints.

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 implies the tool is used when needing attribute constraints, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusion criteria.

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