match_design_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It states what the tool returns but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. The lack of behavioral disclosure is a gap for a tool with no annotations.

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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It includes examples in a structured list. A minor improvement would be to trim the initial repetition of the purpose in the first two lines.

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?

The description explains the return value (import lines, example usage, parameters, guidance) and gives examples. Without an output schema, this is adequate. Missing error handling or limitations, but sufficient for a simple one-parameter 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?

The sole parameter 'description' is explained as 'Natural language description of the design' and illustrated with examples. Given that the schema has 0% coverage (no parameter descriptions), the description compensates effectively.

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 states 'Find pre-built library components matching a design description' and elaborates on returning import lines, example usage, and parameters. Examples clarify the input-output mapping. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_design_components and match_design_requirements by focusing on natural language matching.

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 usage for finding components from a design description but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., list_design_components). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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