get_primitive

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It tells the agent the tool 'returns' a composite of four content categories, which clarifies the basic read behavior. However, it does not disclose behavior on errors, invalid primitive names, or whether results are fetched live or cached, which are relevant for a no-annotation 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?

The description is a single concise sentence that immediately states the return value and scope. Every word contributes meaning, and there is no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 one-parameter getter, the description covers the input and the high-level content of the output. But with no output schema and no annotations, it omits details about the output shape, failure modes, and the relationship to the overlapping sibling tools. The presence of siblings like get_caveats and get_composition_pattern makes the absence of distinction a real completeness gap.

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 schema already documents the only parameter 'name' with examples like Dialog, Select, and Tooltip, and the description adds the 'Radix UI primitive' context. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add much, and it does not provide any additional constraint or format detail. 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 tool 'returns' a specific resource: the primitive API, accessibility contract, composition pattern, and known caveats for a Radix UI primitive. This is a specific verb-plus-resource formulation that makes the core purpose understandable. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_composition_pattern and get_caveats, which appear to overlap with the returned content.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_primitive versus list_primitives, get_composition_pattern, or get_caveats. The description does not explain whether this tool is an aggregate, a convenience wrapper, or intended for a different use case. An agent is left to infer the relationship from sibling names alone.

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