get_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns component info including name, category, description, and documentation URL, and that the 'rx.' prefix is optional. It does not mention rate limits or authentication, but for a read-only tool, this is adequate.

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 clear sections (Args, Returns, Example) and is concise. Every sentence adds value, and it is front-loaded with the main purpose.

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?

The tool is simple with one parameter, and the description covers what it does and what it returns. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need further explanation. However, it lacks information on error handling or behavior when the component is not found, which would make it more 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?

Parameter 'name' has 0% schema description coverage, but the description fully explains it: 'Component name (e.g., "rx.box", "rx.button", "box", "button") The "rx." prefix is optional.' This adds critical meaning beyond the schema, justifying a top score.

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 starts with 'Get detailed information about a specific Reflex component', which is a clear verb+resource statement. It distinguishes itself from siblings like search_components (which is for searching) and get_component_props (which focuses on props).

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 provides examples (get_component("rx.box"), get_component("button")) and explains the optional prefix, giving clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over siblings like search_components or get_component_props, leaving some ambiguity.

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