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 the output contents and the exact-name requirement, but does not reveal behavior on missing components, error handling, or authorization needs, which are relevant for a lookup 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 one concise sentence, front-loaded with a question, and lists the return contents efficiently. Every word adds value without redundancy.

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 the simplicity of the tool (one parameter), the description provides adequate context about what is returned and the need for exact name. The presence of an output schema covers return shape, but edge-case behavior (e.g., not found) is not described, preventing a perfect score.

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 0%, and the description only says 'by exact name' without elaborating on the 'name' parameter's format, case sensitivity, or examples. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the lack of schema-level parameter documentation.

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 full component detail including props, variants, tokens, and anti-pattern guidance. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_token or list_components by focusing on the component itself.

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 looking up a component by exact name, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, such as when needing a list of components or token-specific information.

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