get_component_detail

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Returns'), but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid componentId), response format, or whether it's idempotent. For a detail-retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool. Every word earns its place by conveying the essential action and target.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks behavioral context (e.g., what 'detailed information' includes, error handling), usage guidance relative to siblings, and output expectations. While concise, it doesn't provide enough information for an agent to use the tool confidently without external knowledge.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'componentId' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples, sourcing guidance). With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

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 action ('Returns detailed information') and the resource ('about a specific component'), which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_components' (which presumably lists components) or other detail-retrieval siblings like 'get_company_detail' and 'get_product_detail'.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a component ID), contrast with 'get_components' for listing, or specify contexts where detailed vs. summary information is required. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling names alone.

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