get_component

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

No annotations are present, so the description must shoulder the burden. It fails to state whether the operation is read-only, what kind of component is returned, or any side effects. The statement is too minimal to be transparent.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the tool's purpose.

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 getter tool with an output schema, the description is minimal but adequate. It doesn't mention return type or prerequisites, but the presence of an output schema reduces the need for return value details.

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 has no description for the 'reference' parameter, but the description clarifies that it is the reference designator, adding crucial meaning beyond the raw schema. This compensates for the 0% schema coverage.

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 it retrieves a component using a reference designator. This distinguishes it from list_components (which lists all) and get_items_by_id (which uses internal IDs). The verb 'get' and resource 'component' are explicit.

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 have a reference designator, but does not explicitly exclude other identifiers or mention when to use alternatives like list_components or get_items_by_id. Context is provided indirectly.

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