evaluate_platform_component_fit

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals process expectations (require a separate .scss file plus a styles property; declare instance-backed components in package.json under optionalDependencies), but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or how errors surface. These are policy rules for downstream code rather than the tool's own behavior, leaving real gaps.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the description spends several sentences on downstream coding conventions (the .scss/styles property requirement and package.json optionalDependencies declaration) that govern follow-up work rather than how to invoke this evaluation tool. Every sentence is coherent but not all of them earn their place against the tool's job.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should describe what the evaluation produces (the verdict shape: use-directly vs wrap vs custom). It never does, instead prescribing how to implement a custom component after the fact. For a decision/evaluation tool this is a meaningful omission, though usage context is otherwise complete.

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 all three parameters (useCase, desiredEvents, desiredProperties) are well documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific decision verb and resource: it evaluates whether an HDS platform component should be used directly, wrapped, or replaced. This is a clear, distinguishable purpose within the sibling set (search/recommend_instance_components), though it never explicitly names the sibling tools it is meant to precede or replace.

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?

It gives explicit timing cues: “use this before scaffolding new UI from scratch and before inventing custom wrappers,” and states a strong default (“MUST prefer existing platform components such as now-card”). It lacks named alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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