add_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Add a new component' implies mutation, but the description does not disclose side effects, file system changes, required permissions, or reversibility. This is a significant gap for a tool that modifies an existing project.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, no redundant wording. Every word earns its place.

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 tool supports multiple component types, but the description gives no specifics on prerequisites, behavioral effects of adding each type, or post-addition steps. With no annotations and only a brief overview, the description is incomplete for a mutating tool of this complexity.

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 0%. The description does not explain the 'config' parameter or its nested fields (project_dir, component, name, fields). Although the schema itself contains property descriptions, the tool description fails to compensate for the zero coverage and adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 'Add a new component to an existing scaffolded project' with a specific verb and resource. It enumerates supported component types (API routers, database models, frontend pages, GitHub Actions, Docker services), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create_project and configure_project.

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 context: it is for adding to an existing project, implying it is not for creating new projects. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or name alternative tools for new project creation or configuration.

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