Get a component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context that annotations cannot: the breadth of returned content (props with defaults and semantics, slots, requirements, Livewire-inclusive snippets, runnable examples) and the intended workflow position before writing a view.

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?

One dense sentence with the highest-value content (what you get) front-loaded and the action guidance trailing. It is slightly list-heavy but every clause earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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 carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so thoroughly by naming each field family returned. An agent knows what it will receive and when to call it; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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 'name' parameter is 100% documented in the schema, including its enum of 42 component identifiers and an example value. The description adds no additional semantics about the parameter itself, so the baseline 3 applies when the schema does all the work.

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 (get) and resource (one component) and enumerates exactly what the payload contains: Blade tags, every prop with default/required/behavior, slot, requirements, usage snippets including Livewire, and working examples. This clearly distinguishes it from list_components, which returns a collection rather than a single component's detail.

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?

"Read it before writing the component into a view" gives an explicit trigger condition for when to call it. It does not, however, name the alternatives (list_components for discovery, add_components for installation) or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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