get_library_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions 'normalized' but omits the required 'path' parameter, does not explain behavior when both name and stable_id are supplied, and says nothing about not-found cases.

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 one concise sentence with no fluff. Every word adds value: 'Get', 'one', 'normalized', 'component-library item', and the lookup methods.

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?

While the tool is simple and has an output schema, the description is incomplete because it omits the required 'path' parameter and lacks any context about invocation constraints, making it insufficient for reliable use.

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 description explicitly covers 'stable_id' and 'name' but completely ignores 'path', which is the only required parameter. With 0% schema coverage, the description fails to explain the essential path parameter.

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 retrieves a single normalized component-library item using 'stable id or exact name', which distinguishes it from list/scan tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling getters like get_component.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as query_library_items or get_library_pattern. The description only states the retrieval mechanism, leaving usage context implicit.

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