shadcn_get_component

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions 'curated reference data' suggesting static, non-destructive behavior, but does not disclose further traits like idempotency, caching, or rate limits. Adequate but could be more explicit.

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?

Two sentences clearly state purpose and data source. No wasted words; front-loaded with actionable information. Highly concise and well-structured.

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 retrieval tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides a good list of what the response includes. It lacks details on error handling or format, but is largely complete given the tool's simplicity.

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% for the single parameter 'name'. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema's description (component name, case-insensitive). Baseline of 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?

Description clearly states the tool gets full details for a shadcn/ui component, listing specific attributes (base primitive, data-slots, variants, sizes, usage example, pairing components). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like shadcn_list_components or shadcn_get_snippet.

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?

Description implies use for obtaining component details with 'curated reference data,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like shadcn_get_snippet for code or shadcn_get_composition for composition patterns. No 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.