Get Component

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about field projection ('shows requested fields even at default values') and the effects of 'full' and 'compress' flags, though the latter two largely mirror the schema descriptions.

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 well-structured with separate lines for alternatives and parameters. It is efficient, though the 'full' and 'compress' explanations partially duplicate the schema descriptions. Still, every sentence contributes to understanding.

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's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no output schema, readOnly annotation), the description covers purpose, usage alternatives, parameter semantics, and behavioral flags. The return format is implied as key-value pairs, which is sufficient for a getter 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%, but the description adds significant value for the 'fields' parameter by listing aliases (e.g., position, rotation, scale) and clarifying that requested fields are shown even at default values. The other parameters are adequately described in the schema.

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 function: 'Component properties as key-value.' It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting that inspect should be used for multiple objects, making the single-object scope obvious.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus an alternative: 'For MULTIPLE objects, use inspect(paths='a,b,c') instead — 1 call vs N.' Also explains the intended use of the 'fields' parameter to save tokens.

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