コンポーネント辞書

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The description adds the return format (components array with fields) and the behavior of the component parameter. It does not contradict annotations and provides useful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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, consisting of two sentences that cover purpose, usage, return format, and recommendation. Every sentence is essential, and the structure is front-loaded with the core idea.

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 tool has only one optional parameter and a clear output schema (mentioned in context), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter behavior, return format, and practical usage advice. It is fully complete for an agent to use effectively.

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 for the sole parameter 'component'. The description reinforces the parameter's behavior (omission vs specification) but doesn't add significant new semantics beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 as schema already does the heavy lifting.

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: to know fields before set_component, acting as a dictionary. It specifies the resource (components) and the verb (describe). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on component schema discovery, a unique function.

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 explicitly recommends using this tool before dx12_set_component to assemble data safely. It explains that omitting component returns all, specifying returns a single definition. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the context is clear, and siblings like dx12_set_component are implied alternatives.

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