storybook_get_component

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond return content. No contradiction but no added value beyond annotations.

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 at 5 sentences with clear structure: purpose, return details, parameter listing, and return format. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool (single parameter with nested object) and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete. It covers purpose, parameters, and return. Could mention error handling for missing components, but overall sufficient.

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?

Even though schema descriptions exist, the description adds meaningful context with examples (e.g., 'Components/Button') and clarifies the response_format parameter. It improves usability over the schema alone.

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 verb 'get' and resource 'specific Storybook component', and details what is returned (stories, IDs, arg types, URLs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'storybook_list_components' which lists all components.

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 by stating its purpose but does not explicitly clarify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'storybook_list_components' or 'storybook_compose_view'. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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