get_component_props

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

The description adds context by noting the data is 'derived from meta.components[X].props', which gives insight into the source. With no annotations provided, it also implicitly conveys a read-only operation by using 'Return'. However, it does not detail the exact return format, possible errors, or behavior on invalid component names.

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, front-loaded sentence that immediately specifies the action and resource. It contains zero filler and is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 simple one-parameter getter with a fully specified enum, the description is sufficient: it states what is returned and the source. The only missing detail is the exact return representation ('TypeScript-interface view' remains slightly ambiguous), but the tool's simplicity keeps this from being a major gap.

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 coverage for the single parameter is 100%, including an enum and description for 'componentName' (PascalCase). The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a component's props'), describing the output as a 'TypeScript-interface view'. It differentiates itself from siblings like get_component and get_component_capabilities by focusing specifically on the props interface.

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?

Usage is implied: use this to obtain a component's props as a TypeScript interface. However, there is no explicit statement about when it should be used over sibling tools (e.g., get_component_reference) or any exclusions.

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