Get a component specification

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so a safe read operation is known. The description adds what content the call returns (spec components) but does not describe edge behaviors such as invalid ids, aliases, or response format, which are not covered by annotations either; this is acceptable for a simple lookup.

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?

One dense, front-loaded sentence communicates the core purpose immediately and then uses a comma-separated list of spec areas to add detail without unnecessary prose. Every listed category earns its place.

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?

For a single-id lookup with no output schema, the description gives a comprehensive picture of what the returned spec includes, from anatomy through do/don't guidance. It doesn't mention error behavior or how to discover valid component ids, but the required id parameter and sibling search/list tools cover that gap.

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%: the single required id parameter is fully described with examples ('button', 'table', 'combobox'). The description adds no parameter-level information, but with fully covered schema the baseline of 3 applies.

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-resource pairing ('complete spec for one component') and enumerates the exact facets covered (anatomy, variants, props, accessibility contract, etc.), which clearly separates this from list_components and get_component_code. A single component spec vs a search or list distinguishes it without needing to mention 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?

The description makes clear that this is for retrieving the full specification for a single named component, which implies the main use case. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the context is sufficiently clear that an agent can decide when to call it.

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