show_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read-only operation ('Return', 'inspect') and describes what information is returned. It goes beyond just the return value by mentioning 'verify component existence', which hints at behavior when the component is missing.

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 compact, starting with the primary purpose and then providing the example and use case. It is well-structured and every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are already covered. The description provides sufficient context for usage, parameter semantics via example, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools. It does not mention additional behavioral nuances like error handling, but the provided information is adequate for this type of tool.

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 the schema already fully documents each parameter. The description adds an example and clarifies the 'component' key format, but does not add significant semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool returns detailed metadata for a specific project/component, listing specific fields (qualifier, tags, branches). It distinguishes itself from siblings like component_tree and search_my_sonarqube_projects by focusing on retrieving metadata for a single known component.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to 'inspect project metadata or verify component existence', giving a clear use case. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the example and specificity imply when it's appropriate relative to sibling search and tree tools.

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