Explore SLDS Component Blueprints

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds 'A read-only reference tool — does not modify the org,' which reinforces but does not significantly go beyond the annotations. It does add that the tool returns examples, best practices, and guidance, which is helpful, but no additional behavioral details like output format or pagination. This is adequate given the annotation coverage.

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 concise and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The second sentence clarifies the read-only nature. The parameter listing is redundant with the schema but adds minimal overhead. Overall, it is well-structured and free of fluff, though the duplicated parameter docs could be trimmed.

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?

For a simple reference tool with two parameters and robust annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It explains what the tool returns (examples, best practices, usage guidance) and the key behavioral trait (read-only). The absence of an output schema is not critical here, though a brief note on the return format would have made it fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the input schema already describes both parameters (componentType and includeExampleCode) with examples. The description repeats this information without adding new meaning or clarifying syntax beyond the schema. The baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 'Returns Salesforce Lightning Design System (SLDS) component examples, best practices, and usage guidance for a given UI pattern.' This uses a specific verb ('returns') and identifies the resource ('SLDS component blueprints') and its scope ('for a given UI pattern'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like sf_guide_lwc_accessibility by focusing on SLDS component examples and best practices rather than accessibility guidance.

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 clear context: it is a 'read-only reference tool' for exploring SLDS components, which implies it should be used when the agent needs examples or usage guidance for a UI pattern. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is strong enough to guide appropriate use.

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