get_component_code

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 accurately signals a read-only operation via 'Get', but does not describe other behavioral aspects like error handling, output size, or whether the code is returned as raw text or structured fields. This is adequate but not rich.

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 front-loads the key information: it gets complete source code for a specific component. No filler or 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?

The tool is simple with only two well-documented parameters, and the description conveys the core purpose. However, there is no output schema, and the description does not clarify how the source code is returned or how it differs from get_component_info, which could be a source of ambiguity given the sibling tools.

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 100%, and both parameters (component_name, include_metadata) are already clearly explained in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 verb ('Get') and resource ('complete source code for a specific VengeanceUI component'), making the tool's purpose immediately obvious. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_components (which lists names) and get_component_info (which likely returns metadata) by emphasizing 'source code'.

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 phrase 'complete source code for a specific component' implies the tool should be used when actual code is needed rather than metadata or lists. However, there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions or mentions of alternatives such as get_component_info, leaving usage context only implicit.

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