get_component_pages

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

With no annotations, the description adds value by noting it is lightweight and uses version-safe columns, implying safe, read-only behavior. It also describes the return structure, but doesn't detail error handling or permissions.

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 extremely concise with no wasted words, and uses a clear structure (Args/Returns). Every sentence provides important information.

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 simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains input, output, and behavioral constraints, making it fully usable.

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 0% but the description adds an example and explains the meaning of the component_name parameter, effectively compensating for the missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'lightweight component-to-pages mapping', and specifies the underlying tables used. It distinguishes from siblings like get_component_structure by focusing on the mapping aspect.

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 provides a concrete example for the component_name argument, implying usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention exclusions.

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