Expand a compact component spec into a full, standards-compliant AST for production-ready web components.
Expands a high-density Compact Component specification into a full, standards-compliant Component AST.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| compactSpec | Yes | Compact component object adhering to Producer Cue DSL |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It communicates a transformation but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it validates the input DSL, what happens on invalid input, or whether there are side effects like persisting or overwriting data.
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, well-structured sentence with no filler. The action and object are front-loaded, and every word contributes to explaining the input and output.
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?
The description covers the high-level input and output, but it does not explain how to construct a valid compactSpec in Producer Cue DSL, what the AST structure looks like, or what errors or side effects to expect. For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, this is just barely 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% and the compactSpec parameter already references Producer Cue DSL, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds the 'high-density' qualifier and the AST output context, but no extra syntax, subfield requirements, or examples beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Expands', with a specific resource, 'Compact Component specification', and names the concrete output: 'full, standards-compliant Component AST.' This clearly differentiates it from siblings like producer_generate_theme or producer_mutate_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 input trigger is implied: use this tool when you have a Compact Component specification that needs expansion into a full AST. However, it never explicitly states when not to use it or compares against alternative tools, so the agent must infer routing from the description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.