compose_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool refuses composition if a component is not in DS meta, and it indicates the output format (snippet with merged imports). However, it does not disclose other important details like return type, error handling, or whether the operation has side effects, leaving some transparency 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and includes a relevant constraint. Every word contributes meaningful information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 medium complexity (one parameter with nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose and one constraint but lacks specifics about the exact output format beyond 'snippet', error behavior, or usage examples. It is adequate for basic selection and invocation but leaves room for ambiguity in edge cases.

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% per the input schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema—it only paraphrases 'multiple components' without explaining the structure or providing additional semantic context that the schema already lacks.

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 ('Compose'), the resource ('multiple DS components'), and the output ('a single snippet with a merged import block'). It also adds a specific constraint ('Refuses composition if any component is not in DS meta'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component or list_components.

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 usage (use when you need to combine multiple components into one snippet), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. No comparison with sibling tools is provided, leaving the agent to infer the scope from the word 'multiple'.

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