Get component details

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantive behavior beyond them: free-tier source is gated behind includeSource=true, Pro source is never streamed via MCP, and the tool does not install anything but returns an installCommand. Those are exactly the non-obvious traits an agent needs before calling.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with purpose before the alternative-tool routing and the source-tier caveats. Dense and mostly waste-free, though the telegraphic phrasing ('Free source only when includeSource=true') costs a bit of readability.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so: it lists the metadata fields returned and specifically calls out installCommand. Combined with the source-tier and no-install caveats, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly.

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% and the schema already spells out both parameters, including that Pro source is never returned via MCP in V1. The description's note about includeSource largely restates that, so it adds little semantic value beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get registry metadata for one known component') and immediately enumerates what that metadata contains (deps, category, file list). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling search_components by the condition of name certainty, so an agent can pick between the two without opening a schema.

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?

Names the alternative tool explicitly ('Use search_components when the name is uncertain') and gives the selecting condition. It also implicitly scopes usage to known names via 'one known component', leaving no ambiguity about the lookup-vs-search split.

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