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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. The verb '获取' (get) implies a non-mutating read and the default Vue3 note is helpful, but there is no statement about read-only guarantees, caching, permissions, or whether results are exhaustive.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states purpose, scope, and the return payload with no wasted words. It is efficient, though minimal.

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 two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what is fetched and the version default. Only minor gaps remain, such as how the API documentation is returned.

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 both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's mention of the Vue3 default merely restates the schema's default/enum, adding no new semantics beyond the structured data.

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 names a specific verb+resource (get detailed info for a specific idux component) and enumerates what is returned (name, description, API docs). It is clearly distinguishable from list/search siblings, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: fetch details when you already have a component name. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of the sibling tools (list_idux_components, search_components, get_component_examples) that cover adjacent needs.

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

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only, how many examples are returned, pagination behavior, or any rate limits. The only behavioral trait mentioned is the Vue3 default, which is also in the schema. This is a significant gap for an unannotated read tool.

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?

A single short sentence that front-loads the core purpose and notes the default version. No wasted words, appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too minimal. It doesn't explain what an 'example' is (code snippet, usage pattern, etc.), how many are returned, or how to interpret results. The agent is left with significant unknowns about the return value and application context.

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 (vueVersion with description and default, componentName with description). The description repeats the Vue3 default but adds no syntax, format, or constraint details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

Clear verb+resource: 'get' + 'component usage examples' for a specific idux component. It distinguishes from siblings like get_component_details by retrieving examples rather than details. However, the scope is somewhat ambiguous: it's unclear whether it returns all examples or a single example, and how it relates to list_idux_components or search_components.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions the default Vue3 version but doesn't say when to choose Vue2 or when this tool is preferable over get_component_details or search_components. The agent must infer context from the name alone.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the meaningful default (Vue3) and that the result is the complete set. However, it says nothing about the read-only nature, whether the list is cached, or what a returned entry contains, leaving moderate gaps.

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?

A single tight sentence with the scope and version default front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized for a one-parameter list tool, though it could front-load more clearly what is returned.

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 no-required-argument list tool this is roughly adequate, but with no output schema the description never indicates the shape or contents of a component entry, and it omits any note on the sibling tools that refine or cache this list.

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% and the only parameter (vueVersion, enum vue2/vue3, default vue3) is fully documented in the schema; the description's parenthetical about the Vue3 default merely restates it. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb+resource (获取...列表 / list of idux components) and adds scope via "所有可用的" (all available), which implicitly separates it from search_components. It does not explicitly name or contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: you call this to enumerate everything, versus the sibling search_components for filtered lookup. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement, no mention of the alternatives, and no prerequisites or caching guidance in light of update_components_cache.

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

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about result format, ranking, limits, or whether the search is fuzzy/exact. Only the default Vue version is hinted, but that's already in the schema.

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?

A single efficient sentence that front-loads the action. No waste, though it's too sparse to be truly helpful.

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 search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and siblings that overlap, the description should explain scope and relationship to list_idux_components but does not. It's incomplete for an agent to choose correctly.

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%; both query and vueVersion are documented in the schema. The description only restates the default version, which is redundant with the schema's default field. 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?

States a verb (search) and resource (idux components), which is clear. But it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling list_idux_components or get_component_details, leaving the boundary unclear.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use, no mention of alternatives like list_idux_components. The Vue3 default is implied but not explained as an option.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and largely fails it: it does not say whether this invalidates or rebuilds the cache, how long it takes, whether it blocks subsequent tool calls, whether it requires network access, or what it returns on failure. Only the version default is disclosed, which is duplicated from the schema.

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?

A single short sentence with the action front-loaded and no wasted clauses. It is efficient, though the trailing "(defaults to Vue3)" repeats what the schema already declares rather than adding new information.

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 side-effecting cache-refresh tool with zero annotation coverage and no output schema, an agent still lacks the essentials: whether this must be run before the read siblings, what state it leaves the cache in, and how completion is signaled. The rich enum/default schema covers only the one input, not the behavior around it.

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% with a single enumerated parameter (vue2/vue3) that already documents its default. The description merely repeats that same default, adding no syntax, format, or consequence-level meaning beyond the schema. 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?

States a specific verb and resource: manually updating the component information cache, with the scope qualifier that it defaults to the Vue3 variant. It reads clearly against the read-oriented siblings (list/get/search components), though it never explicitly names or contrasts them.

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 only usage signal is the word "手动" (manual), which faintly implies forcing a refresh outside automatic updates, but there is no statement of when a refresh is needed, what condition triggers it, or which sibling tools depend on a fresh cache. No alternatives or exclusions are given.

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