select_components

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses return values (code, token registry, accessibility notes), and notes high animation preference with specific effects. It does not mention side effects or permissions, but for a code-generation tool this is adequate.

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 somewhat wordy with a bullet list and emphasis, but it is well-structured with clear sections (phase, returns, features, prerequisites, presets). Each sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values, provides component count and styles, covers all parameters with presets, and includes a prerequisite. It is comprehensive for a component selection tool.

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 coverage is 100% and the description adds significant value beyond schema: explains style auto-resolution, lists framework options, defines presets, and specifies animation preference default. This enriches parameter understanding.

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 'Select and adapt animated UI components for your framework and design system', with a specific verb-resource pair and differentiation from siblings like explore_components which likely is for browsing. The phase numbering also provides context.

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 includes a prerequisite ('Run design_theme first') and lists presets, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like explore_components or generate_background. The guidance is partial.

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