查询组件 API

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the output format: props with type/required/default/description, events with kebab-case binding names (e.g., @on-click), and slots. It accurately describes the tool's read-only nature and what information is returned.

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, no fluff. The first sentence lists what is returned, the second states the use case. Every sentence is necessary and well-structured.

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 simple input (one required string) and no output schema, the description fully explains both input and output. It covers all aspects needed for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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% (one parameter with description). The description adds examples (see-button, see-input) and clarifies that the tag comes from 'list_components'. This provides helpful context beyond the schema's basic description.

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 that the tool returns a component's complete API (props, events, slots) given a tag. It distinguishes from siblings: 'list_components' lists tags, and 'get_component_examples' likely provides examples, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does.

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 implies usage: it's for generating accurate code when you need a component's API. It references 'list_components' for valid tags. While it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, the sibling names make it clear that 'get_component_examples' is for examples, not API details. A small gap in explicit when-not guidance.

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