danceflow_component

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

Annotations already supply readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the categories of information returned (schemas, effects, references, host requirements), but says nothing about behavior on an unknown component, depth or size of the payload, or any prerequisites.

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?

One tight sentence with the object of inspection front-loaded after the verb; nothing is redundant. It is efficient, though a little more content would have been justified given the parameter gap.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description need not document return values, and the description does gesture at the returned categories. The remaining hole is the sole input parameter's format, which is undocumented in both the schema and the description for a tool whose entire invocation hinges on identifying the right component.

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 single required parameter "component" has 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not compensate at all — it never says whether the value is a name, an ID, a path, or a qualified key. With one undocumented parameter, an agent must guess the accepted identifier form.

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 uses a specific verb ("Inspect") and enumerates the concrete resource contents: typed operation schemas, effects, references and host requirements. An agent can tell it is a read-only introspection tool for a single component. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like danceflow_capabilities or danceflow_read_reference, which sound adjacent.

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 statement of when to reach for this tool rather than danceflow_capabilities, danceflow_search or danceflow_read_reference, and no preconditions (must the component exist, must it be a workflow component). Usage is only implied by the verb "Inspect".

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