extract_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only extraction operation, but it never explicitly states that the screen is not modified, whether permissions are needed, what the output shape is, or what 'variants' means in terms of side effects or generated artifacts.

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 sentence with no repetition, filler, or low-value detail. The core action, resource, and output emphasis are front-loaded and fit the tool's scope well.

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 tool with four parameters, all covered by the schema, the description is minimally enough for an agent to attempt a basic call. However, the absence of output-shape context, safety/behavioral details, and usage routing becomes noticeable given there are no annotations and many closely related sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a useful conceptual frame around the componentTypes enum by listing buttons, cards, forms, and inputs, and it hints at output content with 'styles and variants,' but it does not materially clarify the parameters or their relationships beyond what the schema already provides.

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 that this tool extracts reusable UI component patterns from a screen and includes styles and variants as part of the output. The parenthetical examples help identify the domain, but the description does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as extract_design_context or generate_variants.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of one of its many siblings, such as extract_design_context, generate_variants, screen_to_react, or get_screen_code. It gives no 'use this when...' statement, no prerequisites, and no exclusion criteria.

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