Get Component Documentation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavior disclosure. It states the output (returns documentation) and implies a read-only operation, but it does not mention behavior for invalid component names, case sensitivity, or error handling. There is no contradiction, but the disclosure is minimal.

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?

A single, focused sentence that immediately communicates the tool's purpose and result. No wasted words or unnecessary details.

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's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately covers the core purpose and parameter meaning. It does not explain edge cases, but these are less critical for a straightforward documentation retrieval tool.

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 schema provides zero description coverage for the 'component' parameter. The description adds semantic meaning by indicating it identifies a specific Material Web component, which clarifies the parameter's purpose. It stops short of providing format examples or constraints beyond the schema's minLength.

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 action ('Returns'), the resource ('full documentation'), and the scope ('a specific Material Web component'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_theming_docs and list_components, which target different aspects.

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 usage is implied through the description: use this when you need full docs for a specific component. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_docs or list_components, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

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