suggest_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals that the tool generates an optimized prompt (the output) and that it draws from a private component library. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or access constraints, but for a suggestion tool these are minimal. The disclosure of the output format adds relevant context.

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 front-loaded with 'USE WHEN' and is structured clearly, with trigger examples and a statement of the tool's behavior. It is slightly verbose due to the repeated examples of UI development tasks, but each element serves a purpose and there is 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 tool with one input parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers when to use it, what it does, and what it returns (an optimized prompt). It does not explicitly explain how it differs from sibling tools beyond the focus on components, but the purpose and usage context are sufficiently clear.

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 provides a detailed description for the single 'prompt' parameter with concrete examples ('generate a login page', 'create user list'), achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already offers, 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 states the tool's purpose: it analyzes user requirements, recommends the most suitable components from a private library (@private-basic-components), and generates an optimized prompt with implementation suggestions. It uses a specific verb ('recommend'/'suggest') and resource, and the focus on components distinguishes it from siblings like suggest_utilities and query_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 begins with 'USE WHEN' and lists explicit trigger scenarios (creating pages, components, interfaces, forms, etc.), providing clear usage context. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or recommend alternatives (e.g., suggest_utilities for utility tasks), so it lacks full exclusion guidance.

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