get-component-css

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one key behavioral trait: the tool relies on cached data. However, it does not describe what happens if the cache is missing, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The single precondition adds value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, efficient sentence: 'Get CSS styles for a component. Requires cached data.' It front-loads the core purpose and adds a necessary constraint. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or 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?

This is a simple tool with 2 parameters and no output schema. The description conveys the core purpose and a key prerequisite, which is adequate for basic invocation. However, it lacks details about what 'cached data' entails, how the output is structured, and potential failure modes (e.g., missing cache). Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, a more complete description would be beneficial.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), but the descriptions are mere labels: 'Framework' for the enum and 'Component name' for the string. The tool description adds no semantic meaning beyond these labels—it does not explain how the framework enum affects the CSS returned or what specific component names are valid. Since coverage is high, the baseline of 3 applies, but no additional value is provided.

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 function: 'Get CSS styles for a component.' This uses a specific verb ('Get'), a distinct resource ('CSS styles'), and a target ('component'), which differentiates it from sibling tools like 'get-component' (general info) and 'get-component-source' (source code).

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 a usage precondition: 'Requires cached data.' This implies the tool should only be used when cached data is available, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like 'get-component-source' or 'get-story'. There is no mention of when not to use it, so the guidance is minimal and largely implied.

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