producer_get_primitive

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the primitive is headless, accessible, and production-ready, which adds value. However, it does not describe what the tool returns (e.g., code, component object) or any side effects, leaving behavioral transparency incomplete for a getter operation.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then lists the accepted types in parentheses. Every word contributes to clarity, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 simple tool with one enum parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete but omits the return format or expected output. An agent might know what to pass but not what to expect back, creating ambiguity for downstream use.

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 the single 'type' parameter fully enumerated. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond the schema's enum and description, so it meets the baseline without enhancing understanding.

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 retrieves a 'production-ready, accessible headless UI primitive' and lists the specific types. The verb 'retrieves' distinguishes it from sibling tools that generate, mutate, or audit components/themes, making the purpose unambiguous and well-differentiated.

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 implies usage for retrieving a primitive but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like producer_generate_component or producer_generate_theme. No exclusions or alternative guidance is provided, so the agent must infer context from the tool name and sibling list.

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