get_component_source_styles

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves a style definition from GitHub, implying a read-only operation, but does not mention what happens if the component slug is invalid, any rate limits, or the response structure. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concise with four sentences, each serving a clear purpose: stating the action, providing background context, explaining the use case, and giving a prerequisite. No wasted words or redundant information.

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's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers purpose, usage context, and a prerequisite. It does not describe the output format or error handling, but these are partially mitigated by the absence of an output schema. The description is fairly complete for its 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 100% and the parameter 'component' is already well-described in the schema. The description adds value by explicitly stating the prerequisite ('Use list_components first'), which goes beyond the schema's information. This lifts the score above the baseline 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?

The description clearly states the verb ('get'), the resource ('default tailwind-variants style definition'), and the specific context ('HeroUI v2 component'). It also distinguishes from siblings like 'get_component_source_code' by focusing on style definitions rather than source code, and mentions the location on GitHub.

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 a clear use case ('useful when writing custom classNames or a custom theme') and a prerequisite ('Use list_components first to get a valid slug'). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so a small gap remains.

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