Get a component specification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so behavioral safety is covered. The description adds substantial context about the content returned (e.g., accessibility contract, dark-mode behavior, tokens consumed), which goes beyond structured annotations and helps set expectations for the response.

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 one dense sentence that efficiently enumerates the scope of the spec without fluff. Each listed item adds meaningful detail, and the structure is front-loaded with 'complete spec for one component' before expanding.

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 fully carries the burden of explaining return contents. It covers all major aspects of a component spec comprehensively (anatomy, variants, props, accessibility, content, do/don't), making the tool's purpose and result unambiguous for an agent.

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 input schema already documents the single 'id' parameter with a clear description and examples, giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds nothing specific about parameters, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies a clear verb ('get') and resource ('component specification'), with an explicit enumeration of content: anatomy, variants, states, props, accessibility contract, etc. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_code or get_pattern.

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 clearly states that this returns the complete spec for one component, implying it is the go-to for full specification details. It lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions, but the context is clear enough for a single-purpose getter.

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