rails_get_component_catalog

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that by disclosing what the catalog contains (props, slots, previews, reverse-mapping of components to views), which tells the agent what it gets back. It omits any note on result volume or pagination behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the return contents front-loaded ahead of usage triggers and params. The trailing 'Key params' clause is somewhat redundant against a fully documented schema, but it is short and does prioritize. No wasted prose.

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 no output schema, the description must describe return values, and it does so by enumerating props, slots, previews, and rendering relationships. Combined with usage triggers and key params, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/result-size expectations are left to the schema.

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 description coverage is 100% and all four params carry explanations, including the detail enum values spelled out in the schema. The description's 'Key params: component (filter by name), detail level' merely flags which two matter most; it adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 (Returns) and resource (ViewComponent and Phlex component catalog), then enumerates its contents: props, slots, previews, and which views render each component. That enumeration distinguishes it from adjacent siblings like rails_get_view and rails_get_partial_interface without needing to name them.

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?

Explicit when-to-use triggers are given: 'building views with components, understanding component API, finding reusable components.' That is clear positive guidance. It stops short of 5 because no when-not conditions or named alternatives are offered, so an agent choosing between this and rails_get_partial_interface or rails_get_view must infer the boundary.

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