Get Header Component

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: the returned data includes rowVersion, includeUsage behaves differently at spec vs project level, and the tool is positioned as a pre-deletion check. This is valuable beyond the annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded, with every sentence carrying distinct information. It avoids repeating schema details and packs the essential usage caveats into a compact form.

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 partially explains the return value by mentioning schema details and rowVersion. It also covers key prerequisites and level-specific behavior. It could be more explicit about response shape or possible errors, but it is sufficient for correct selection and invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining that specId is needed for 'spec' level, that includeUsage lists references and is spec-only, and that project context is required. This exceeds baseline without replacing the schema.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Get one header component with its schema details and rowVersion." It distinguishes itself from list-style siblings by emphasizing 'one' component and naming the component resource rather than policies or resolved headers.

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 gives clear operational guidance: choosing level 'spec' requires specId, includeUsage is spec-level only, and it should be used before deleting a component. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like list_header_components, but the guidance is sufficient for correct invocation.

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