zeroheight-get-component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not disclose what 'full documentation' includes, any required permissions, or possible limitations. It lacks details on return structure or behavior beyond the basic fetch.

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 that is front-loaded with the main action and resource. It contains no redundant words and is appropriately concise for a simple retrieval tool.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), but the description does not fully explain what the returned 'full component documentation' contains, nor how it relates to the many sibling tools. It is adequate but leaves ambiguity about the exact output and usage context.

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 has one parameter with a description ('Component name') and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further meaning or context for the parameter, so the score is the baseline 3 as the schema already handles the semantics.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and clearly identifies the resource as 'full component documentation' from 'Zeroheight'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get-component-source' or 'get-component-css' by emphasizing that it returns comprehensive documentation.

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 phrase 'full component documentation' implies the tool should be used when complete documentation is needed, but there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which alternative to choose. Nothing in the description explains how it differs from similar siblings like 'get-component'.

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