get_component_info

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. 'Get' clearly signals a read-only operation, and it lists the main data categories (metadata, dependencies, stats). While it does not mention edge cases or error behavior, these are less critical for a simple read tool, and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It front-loads the action ('Get') and defines key result aspects, making it efficient and scannable.

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?

For a tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description conveys the essential information: what it retrieves (metadata, dependencies, stats) and the entity type (component). However, it does not explain return structure or relationship to sibling tools, but this is acceptable for a simple getter.

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 input schema covers 100% of parameters (component_name), and the description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. The description's mention of 'component' indirectly references the parameter but adds no new meaning about how to specify the component.

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 ('get') and resource ('component') and clarifies the scope as 'detailed information including metadata, dependencies, and stats.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which lists) and get_component_code (which retrieves 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 description implies the tool is for retrieving in-depth details for a single component, contrasting with list_components or search_components, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over alternatives or exclude cases. It provides clear context (use when full component details are needed) without explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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