View labsUI items

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds real value by disclosing what the read returns (props/types, usage line, examples, bundled packages). It stops short of saying what happens for unknown names or whether lookups are cached/batched, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the core action and payload front-loaded before the workflow guidance. Every clause earns its place.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by listing the exact contents of the response. Combined with the sibling routing and annotation coverage, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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%, so both parameters (names, source) are already documented in the schema. The description only reinforces that names are the lookup key ('by name') and does not mention the source flag at all, so it adds little beyond the schema — baseline 3.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read the docs of labsUI items by name') and enumerates the payload: exact props and types, a usage line, full examples, and the items and npm packages each brings along. An agent can distinguish this from search/add without opening any schema.

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?

Explicit directive: 'Call it before writing code with a component instead of guessing props', plus routing for the neighbouring steps — 'find names with search, install with add'. Both the when-to-use and the alternatives are named.

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