get_component_html

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 discloses that the tool extracts HTML and optionally includes CSS styles, which is useful context. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., invalid story IDs), performance aspects, or the response format, leaving some behavioral gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by prerequisites and examples in two efficient sentences. Every sentence adds value—the first defines the tool, and the second provides critical usage guidance—with no wasted words.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description does well by explaining the tool's purpose, parameters, and prerequisites. However, it lacks details on the return value (e.g., HTML structure) and error handling, which would be helpful for a tool with no structured output information.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reinforcing the story ID format and suggesting sources for it, but doesn't provide additional syntax or usage details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Extract HTML') and resource ('from a specific component story in Storybook'), distinguishing it from siblings like list_components (which lists components) or get_component_variants (which shows variants). It provides concrete examples of story IDs, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Requires a story ID') and provides clear alternatives for obtaining valid IDs ('Use list_components or get_component_variants first to find valid story IDs'). This directly addresses when to use this tool versus its siblings, offering practical guidance.

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