find_ui_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It states it finds files by name but does not disclose whether the search is recursive, case-sensitive, or what file types are considered UI components. The scope is moderately clear but lacks specific behavioral details.

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 sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no unnecessary words.

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 simplicity of the tool (one required parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose and parameter semantics. However, it does not mention the return format or any search behavior, which would improve completeness. Still, for a basic search tool it is 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 coverage is 100% with one parameter 'name'. The description adds an example list ('card', 'player', 'modal') which is helpful but does not add substantial meaning beyond the schema. The baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage.

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 verb (Find) and resource (Lampa UI component files including templates, components, views). The tool name 'find_ui_component' aligns with the description, and among siblings like 'find_files' and 'find_settings', it is specifically differentiated for UI components.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'find_files' or 'search_code'. No context is given for when not to use it or what the limitations are.

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