get_component_dependencies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions analyzing rendered HTML and detecting patterns, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, performance implications, rate limits, or what happens if the componentId is invalid. It lacks details on output format or error handling, leaving gaps in transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and scope without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main action and includes specific details like detection targets, making it concise and effective.

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 has no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete. It covers the purpose and parameter usage but lacks details on behavioral aspects, return values, or error cases, which are important for a tool performing analysis on rendered HTML.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with componentId documented as 'The story ID of the component (e.g., "example-button--primary")'. The description adds minimal value beyond this by implying the parameter is used for analysis, but does not provide additional syntax, format details, or constraints beyond what the schema already specifies.

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 purpose with specific verbs ('analyze rendered HTML to find') and resources ('which other components a given component internally uses'), and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying detection of React components, web components, and CSS class patterns, which is not covered by other tools like get_component_html or list_components.

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 context by mentioning 'rendered HTML' and 'internally uses,' suggesting it's for dependency analysis, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_component_by_purpose or search_components, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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