get-component

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of explaining behavior. It clearly discloses the output format (Markdown), the content sections (props, events, examples, mistakes, related components), and the notable behavioral trait of 77% token savings versus JSON. This goes beyond a generic 'get' description and informs the agent of efficiency implications. It does not disclose potential response size or pagination, but the content list and token-savings hint provide strong transparency.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the core purpose is in the first sentence, followed by a concise bullet-style list of content, and a final note about token efficiency. Every sentence adds value; no filler or repetition.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description is quite complete. It outlines exactly what the response will contain and even addresses the format/token trade-off. Minor omissions include not mentioning error conditions (e.g., unknown component name) or whether output includes 'when to use' guidance, but these are not significant given the tool's simplicity.

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 parameter 'name' already has a description in the schema with examples (e.g., InButton, InDatePickerV2), so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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, and format: 'Get detailed information about a specific Design System component in Markdown format.' Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list-components, get-props, get-events, get-examples by emphasizing its comprehensive nature and Markdown output, which is a clear differentiator.

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: call this tool when you need complete component documentation in a single, token-efficient Markdown response. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over get-props, get-events, or get-examples, nor does it describe when one of those narrower tools would be more appropriate. The token savings note provides some decision context but falls short of explicit routing guidance.

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