Get paste-ready component code

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the description is not required to disclose mutation. It adds valuable behavioral context by explaining what each framework returns (reference markup with ARIA, stylesheet with tokens, typed wrappers with forwarded accessibility attributes). This goes beyond the annotations and gives the agent a clear picture of the output nature.

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 exactly two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then expanding into framework-specific behavior. There is no redundancy or filler; every sentence earns its place. This is a model of conciseness.

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 simple read-only tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what to expect from each framework variant. It is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly without additional 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters ($id and framework) and even provides per-enum descriptions for framework. The description reiterates the framework distinctions in prose but adds no new information beyond the schema. As per the rubric, a baseline of 3 is appropriate when the schema is thorough.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Production code for a component in the requested framework.' It also clarifies the expected output type for each framework option, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component (which likely returns component metadata/overview) and get_stylesheet (which likely returns only the stylesheet). This is more specific than the title alone.

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 implies usage: if you need production component code in a particular framework, use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_stylesheet for stylesheet-only needs. With many sibling tools listed, the lack of explicit differentiation leaves some ambiguity for an agent.

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