Get Component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a paid component without access returns an upgrade message with a pricing URL rather than an error or source. That access-gating detail is the key thing an agent could misread as failure. It stops short of saying how access is determined (account/subscription context) or what the upgrade payload looks like.

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, no filler, with the primary action front-loaded and the access-gating caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of describing the two possible return shapes (source vs. upgrade message with pricing URL). It does not cover error cases such as an unknown slug, which is a minor gap for a single-parameter read tool.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its provenance ('slug from list_components or search_components, e.g. buttons-01'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the notion of 'by slug' without adding format or validation meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate at 100% 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?

States a specific verb and resource plus the exact artifact returned ('full Vue SFC source by slug'), which is far more informative than the title 'Get Component'. It implies but never explicitly contrasts itself with list_components or search_components, so the sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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?

Usage is only implied: the slug-based lookup suggests it is called after discovering a slug, and that hint lives in the schema rather than the description. There is no explicit 'use this when you already have a slug, use search_components otherwise' statement or exclusion of alternatives.

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