query_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It does disclose the type of information returned (props, events, slots, examples), but it doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior. The word 'query' implies read-only, providing some implicit reassurance, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 concise sentences, immediately front-loading the action ('query component name') and purpose ('understand specific usage'). Every word earns its place with no 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?

For a simple single-parameter query tool, the description adequately conveys the return content (props, events, slots, examples) and the use case. It doesn't address output formatting or error cases, but given the tool's simplicity and lack of output schema, these are minor gaps.

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 is 100% — the single parameter 'componentName' has a clear description with an example ('das-button'). The tool description only refers to 'component name' without adding extra semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the 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 identifies the tool's function: querying detailed component information by name, and enumerates the specific fields returned (props, events, slots, usage examples). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like query_utility, which likely handles utilities.

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?

It states the tool is used to understand the specific usage of recommended components, providing clear context for when to invoke it (after a component recommendation). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name direct alternatives.

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