get_portal_component_code

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions default full body return and no chunking, but it fails to mention any side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or whether the operation is read-only. The statement about chunking provides some behavioral insight but is insufficient.

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 very short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds information, though the structure could be improved by separating purpose from behavioral note.

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?

Given 6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 29 sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not clarify what 'SI' means, what fields are returned, or how to use the parameters. It lacks sufficient context for correct tool selection and invocation.

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 coverage is 50% and the description adds no additional meaning to the parameters. Parameters like table and sys_id have no description in schema or text, and the description does not explain fields or the rare parameters beyond what is already in the schema.

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 verb 'Fetch' and the resources 'widget/provider/SI fields', indicating the tool retrieves component code. However, 'SI' is ambiguous and may not be universally understood, and the description doesn't fully distinguish from similar siblings like get_page or get_widget_bundle.

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 a use case by stating 'Returns full body by default' and 'Never chunk for analysis', but it does not explicitly explain when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it provide any when-not or alternative guidance.

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