Find components to skip first

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, establishing a safe, read-only behavioral profile. The description adds valuable context by specifying the tool surfaces failure warnings and worst measured offenders, which clarifies the kind of data returned. No contradictions with 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?

A single sentence that is well-front-loaded with the key purpose ('Show failure warnings and the worst measured offenders') and mentions the optional filter. No unnecessary words; every part 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 string params, no enums, no nested objects) and the presence of annotations and an output schema, the description is largely complete. It explains what the tool returns (failure warnings and worst offenders). A minor gap is not explaining what 'measured' refers to (e.g., performance metrics), but overall adequate.

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% with both parameters documented ('Exact component pattern.' and 'Optional exact visual style.'). The description reiterates the style filter but adds no new constraints or format details. Baseline is 3 because schema already covers parameter meaning adequately.

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 shows failure warnings and worst measured offenders in a pattern, with optional style filtering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'find_component' (general search) and 'check_component' (validation), as it focuses on problematic items. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from 'alternatives' or 'check_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings is provided. The description implies its use for identifying failures and worst offenders, but does not mention exclusions or alternatives. For example, there is no note like 'use check_component for detailed validation' or 'this does not provide alternatives'.

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