get-props

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

With no annotations, the description itself indicates this is a read-only retrieval operation and states the content of the returned props information. However, it does not disclose error behavior, whether component names are exact matches, or any other edge-case handling.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, then adds useful output details about types, defaults, and descriptions.

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 simple one-parameter getter with no output schema, the description adequately states the purpose and the returned information. It is slightly incomplete in not covering potential errors or exact-match requirements, but the low complexity keeps the gap minor.

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%, so the single 'name' parameter is already documented as 'Component name'. The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'detailed props information' and enumerates the contained fields (types, defaults, descriptions). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get-component, get-events, and get-examples.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over get-component or search-components, nor does it mention any exclusions or alternative conditions.

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