get_component_docs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does explain the output content (sections of documentation) which gives basic behavior, but does not mention performance characteristics (e.g., network call, latency), error conditions (e.g., invalid slug response), or any side effects. The description is transparent about what the tool returns but lacks deeper behavioral context.

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 two sentences long: the first clearly states the purpose and output, the second provides critical usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler. Information is front-loaded effectively.

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?

Given the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose and prerequisite usage well. It could arguably benefit from mentioning that the output is text/markdown or that valid slugs are case-sensitive, but the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly with the listed inputs.

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 schema has 100% coverage for its sole parameter 'component', including an explicit description and example values. The description echoes this by mentioning 'valid slugs (e.g. "button", "date-range-picker")' but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 the tool gets 'full HeroUI v2 documentation for a single component' and lists the specific content sections: description, install command, import statements, usage guidance, and props/API reference. This makes the verb and resource explicit and distinct from siblings like get_component_source_code or get_docs.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool and a prerequisite: 'Use list_components first to get valid slugs'. This tells the agent the required preparatory step and points to the sibling tool for obtaining valid input, effectively distinguishing usage from other documentation tools.

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