Get runtime behavior and lifecycle contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful scope detail (what is included, and that omitting id returns the full catalogue), but says nothing about result size, pagination, or cost of the unfiltered call, which is the main behavioral risk here.

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 sentences, no filler, with the content scope and the filter behavior front-loaded. The trailing inventory of included artifacts is slightly list-like but each item is informative.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. For a single optional filter parameter, the description covers scope, filtering, and the unfiltered default — nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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 0% for the single id parameter, so the description must carry the load — and it does, explaining that id accepts a component id or an exported API name and that omitting it returns everything. It stops short of format examples or accepted value shapes.

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: retrieves the runtime behavior and lifecycle contract surface, with a concrete content list (TypeScript declarations, selectors, initialization, cleanup, events, responsibilities). It is clear about what it returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-siblings such as get_component or get_component_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?

"Filter by component id or exported API name; omit id for the full catalogue" tells the agent how to scope the call but not when this tool is the right choice versus get_component, get_component_code, or get_layout. Usage is implied by the content list rather than stated.

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