Get component by id

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that missing IDs produce an error and that matching is exact, which is useful and sufficient for a simple read operation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the core action, the identifying key, and the failure behavior with no wasted words. Every clause adds meaning.

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 one-parameter read operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it fetches, how to identify the item, and what happens when it is absent. It stops short of describing the returned component shape, but that is acceptable given the simple, single-entity scope.

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 id parameter thoroughly, including its pattern and 'stable registry id' meaning. The description adds only the 'exact' qualifier and error behavior, which is marginal value beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb ('fetch'), a specific resource ('a single component'), and the lookup key ('its exact stable registry id'). It differentiates itself from sibling tools like registry_list_components and registry_find_component by emphasizing exact-id retrieval of one component.

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 the usage context clear: use this when you have the exact stable registry id for one component. It implies that fuzzy or partial lookup belongs elsewhere (e.g., registry_find_component), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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