find_component_for_use_case

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely restates the purpose without explaining how relevance is determined, what the result looks like, or what happens when no match is found. This is a significant gap for a tool that performs semantic matching.

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, concise sentence that immediately states the verb ('finds') and resource ('component'), with no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and easy to parse.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and only one parameter, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not describe the shape of the returned component, how confidence or relevance is presented, or edge cases like no matches. This makes it inadequate for fully autonomous tool selection and invocation.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, including a clear description and example. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the structured schema already 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 clearly states the tool's function: finding the most relevant design system component based on a use case description. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_component (which likely retrieves a specific component) and list_components_by_category (which lists by category).

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 when you have a textual use case and need a component recommendation, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools or provide exclusions. It lacks guidance on when to prefer this over get_component or list_components_by_category, so usage is only implicitly determined.

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