get_component_detail

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses successful behavior (returns full metadata) and edge case handling (ambiguous returns candidates). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, error handling for missing items, or performance considerations, but covers key behavioral aspects adequately.

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 (two sentences), front-loads the primary purpose, and efficiently covers the edge case. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or fluff.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies the types of metadata returned (props, hooks, etc.) and the ambiguous case. It is missing explicit error handling (e.g., 'component not found') but overall provides sufficient context for the tool's 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining the disambiguation use case for the 'file' parameter and specifying example values for 'name'. It clarifies the 'ambiguous' return, which is not in 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 specifies a clear action ('get detailed information') and resource ('specific component, page, hook, service, adapter, or store by name'). It lists the extensive metadata returned, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_component_props or get_hook_detail which are more focused.

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 explains behavior when multiple matches occur and instructs to re-call with 'file' parameter. However, it does not explicitly advise when to use this tool over specialized siblings (e.g., 'for props only, use get_component_props'). The usage context is implied but not fully clarified.

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