Get component

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond annotations by explaining what each output mode actually yields ("standalone" = full HTML doc with base styles ready to open; "raw" = original markup captured from theknowledgehouse.org), which is genuinely useful behavioral 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then a dense but efficient enumeration of formats. The single run-on sentence is information-rich with little waste, though the format list could be broken up for readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by describing what each format produces. Gaps remain around invalid-name behavior and how to discover available props, but for a read-only single-item getter this is largely complete.

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 only 33%, so the description has to compensate and largely does: it defines every format value including the default ("bundle") and the special semantics of "standalone" and "raw", which the bare enum cannot convey. The props parameter is only lightly covered ("override the default content"), leaving some gap.

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+resource ("Get one component") and clearly signals single-item retrieval, which distinguishes it from list_components and search_components without naming them. It falls short of a 5 because it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: the format enumeration and the note to pass props convey how to call it, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance (e.g., versus get_design_spec or render_page). A reader must infer the context from the sibling names alone.

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