langflow_kb_describe_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing the return content, including that advanced-mode hidden fields are surfaced, which is useful for callers deciding whether to follow up with search_fields.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the return-content summary is front-loaded and the lookup constraint follows. It is terse but every line contributes.

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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, lookup mode, and the shape of the returned data. It stops short of explaining the response_format option or error behavior on a non-matching name, minor gaps given the tool's simplicity.

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 50%: 'nombre' is documented in the schema and the description reinforces it with the exact-match constraint, but 'response_format' has no description in either schema or description. The enum values are self-explanatory, so the description neither compensates fully nor adds much beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource in Spanish ('Devuelve todos los campos de un componente de Langflow') and enumerates what is returned (tipo, opciones, valor por defecto, campos ocultos en modo avanzado). It distinguishes itself from search/list siblings only implicitly via the exact-name lookup line, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

'Búsqueda por nombre exacto sobre la instancia indexada' implies the condition for use (exact-name lookup against indexed components), which contrasts with the fuzzy search siblings, but no alternative tool is named and no when-not guidance is given. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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