get_component

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 indicates a read operation ('Get') and enumerates returned content, which implies no destructive side effects. But it does not explicitly state that it is read-only, nor does it mention error behavior (e.g., invalid ID) or any auth/rate-limit considerations, leaving some transparency gap.

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, efficiently front-loaded sentence that begins with the action and object, then adds relevant detail. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description communicates the core purpose and the kind of data returned. It does not cover edge-case behavior like not-found responses, but that is a minor omission for a simple read-only metadata call, so it is mostly complete.

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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'Component ID (e.g. button, dialog)'). The description adds only the context of a 'specific component', which aligns with the schema but does not provide additional syntax, constraints, or examples beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and names the resource ('detailed metadata for a specific component') with concrete content ('props, files, and per-framework status'). This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_components (listing), get_component_source (source code), and search_components (searching).

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 phrase 'for a specific component' establishes a clear context: use this when you have a component ID and need details, not for browsing or searching. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of explicit exclusion guidance.

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