get_component

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: field projection, showing default values, bypassing distillation with full=True, and stripping defaults with compress=True. No contradictions with annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds distinct value: purpose, alternative, parameter details, and behavior toggles. No filler or redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description successfully explains the return format ('key-value', 'raw response') and all key behaviors. It also covers when to use the tool vs alternatives, making it a complete guide for the tool's usage.

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?

Though schema description coverage is 0%, the description explains the non-obvious parameters thoroughly: 'fields' for projection, 'full' for raw response, and 'compress' for stripping defaults. The required 'path' and 'type' are self-evident from the tool name and sibling context, so the description compensates well.

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 returns component properties as key-value, matching the tool name. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'inspect' by noting that for multiple objects, inspect is the better choice.

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?

Explicitly instructs when to use an alternative: 'For MULTIPLE objects, use inspect(paths='a,b,c') instead — 1 call vs N.' It also explains how to tailor output with 'fields', 'full', and 'compress', providing clear contextual guidance.

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