get_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses one important behavioral constraint: 'Rejects JSX-unsafe prop values'. However, it does not explain error behavior, output format beyond the snippet, or any side effects, leaving the agent with limited insight for a code-generation tool.

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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and output immediately. It earned its place by including both the primary function and a key rejection behavior, with 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?

For a tool with 3 params and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it specifies the return shape (JSX snippet with import and element) and the main constraint. It does not need to enumerate the component list, as that's in the schema. Slightly more detail on return formatting or error handling would push it to 5, but it's adequate.

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 schema already provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond mentioning 'props/children' and the unsafe-value rejection, which is more behavioral than semantic. It does not clarify parameter formats or relationships beyond the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb, 'Generate', and a precise resource, 'a JSX snippet (import + element) for a DS component'. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_component_props or get_component_reference by focusing on code generation.

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 when you need a JSX snippet for a component, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like compose_components or get_component_reference. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned.

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