Get a encode-ui component

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that it reports byte size without sending source/demo content, clarifying a potentially surprising behavior. It also lists the metadata fields returned. This adds useful context about what the tool does and doesn't do.

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, first front-loads the core purpose and deliverables, second adds behavioral detail and points to a sibling. No redundancy; every sentence earns its place.

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 a single parameter, an output schema, and readOnly annotation, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, notes the size-only behavior, and directs users to the source-fetching sibling, leaving no important gaps.

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 a clear description of the 'name' parameter. The description only reinforces 'by name' without adding new semantics, aligning with the baseline for complete 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 tool's purpose: 'Metadata for one component by name' and enumerates specific fields returned (description, group, dependencies, provenance/license, install command). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_component_source by noting it reports byte size without sending the source.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_component_source for actual source: 'fetch those from get_component_source once you know what they cost.' This gives clear when-to-use guidance. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with search_components or list_components for finding components, though 'by name' implies exact lookup.

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