get_component_props

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the type of information returned and ambiguity handling, but lacks details on error cases, side effects (none expected), or what happens if no parameters are provided (since required is empty).

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?

Two sentences in the first paragraph, then a short second paragraph. Front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Very concise and well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains return values (prop names, types, etc.) and ambiguity handling. It covers the main use cases, but could be more explicit about error handling when component is not found. Still, it is largely complete for its purpose.

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%, baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the usage pattern (provide either 'name' or 'componentPath', disambiguate with 'file'), and clarifies the relationship between parameters, going beyond the individual parameter descriptions.

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 gets TypeScript prop interface for a component, specifying return fields and supporting both interface and type alias. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_detail' or 'find_component_usages', which could also involve props.

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 guidance on how to use the tool: provide either 'name' or 'componentPath', and if ambiguous, re-call with 'file'. It implies when to use it (getting prop interface) but does not mention when not to use it or alternatives.

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