find_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds context about intent strings and framework filtering, but does not disclose search behavior, result size limits, or other operational details beyond the annotations.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the main purpose and includes parenthetical examples. Every word contributes, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with three parameters and an output schema. The description covers the key inputs (intent, framework) and provides a clear functional overview. The only missing piece is the limit parameter and any explicit usage context, but given the output schema and low complexity, the description 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the intent and framework parameters (intent string, optional framework filter), but does not mention the limit parameter. Since limit likely controls the number of results, the agent may have to guess its meaning, leaving a partial 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?

The description clearly states the tool finds components/patterns for an intent string, with specific examples (hero, pricing, navbar) and an optional framework filter. This verb+resource+scope structure distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_animation_patterns and discover_frontend_resources.

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 for intent-based component discovery and mentions an optional framework filter, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like find_animation_patterns or search_frontend_knowledge. There is no exclusion or when-not-to-use guidance.

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