themes_get_component_source

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 only says 'Get' without disclosing return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. The agent must infer this is a safe read operation, which is a gap 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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. Every word earns its place.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps. It doesn't clarify what 'source code' includes, whether the component name should match a specific casing, or how it relates to sibling tools like themes_get_component_documentation. The lack of annotations and output schema increases the burden, which the description only partially meets.

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% coverage, already describing componentName with examples ('accordion', 'dialog'). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Get') and the resource ('source code for a specific Radix themes component'), using a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like themes_get_component_documentation and primitives_get_component_source.

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 for retrieving source code but provides no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives. Sibling tool names offer context externally, but the description itself does not guide the agent on choosing between source and documentation tools.

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