Get a document

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, idempotent, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds substantive content-level context: the return is full Markdown with HTML examples and the specific class names they use, telling the agent what it can and should do with the output.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, followed by the practical instruction and the name source. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and annotations carry the safety profile. It covers purpose, return nature, parameter source, and usage intent. Only the relationship to non-list siblings (search_docs, get_install, check_markup) is left unaddressed.

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 single name parameter is fully documented in the schema (100% coverage plus a 28-value enum). The description adds value beyond the schema by telling the agent where valid names come from (list_components), which is not restated in 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?

States a specific verb+resource: returns the full Markdown of one Perfect UI document, including HTML examples and the pui-* classes used. That is concrete enough for an agent to know exactly what it gets back. It only partially differentiates from siblings, naming list_components as the source of names but not contrasting with get_install or search_docs.

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?

Gives an actionable usage rule ("Copy markup from the examples instead of writing classes from memory") and a routing hint for the name argument ("Names come from list_components"). No explicit when-not-to-use or contrast with search_docs/check_markup, so it falls short of a 5.

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