aura_get_component

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the return payload (source, preview image, URL) plus a genuinely useful behavioral rule: full:true overrides chunk. However it says nothing about failure modes when neither id nor slug is supplied, whether id/slug are mutually exclusive or preferential, or any auth/quota constraint.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the payoff (what you get back), then parameters. Telegraphic style wastes nothing, though the fragment 'Numeric id or slug' is terse to the point of being slightly clipped.

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 zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essentials — return contents and all four parameters. It still leaves an agent guessing about identifier precedence and error behavior for a tool that is clearly the payload-heavy terminal step of a search-then-fetch flow.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: all four parameters get meaning (id numeric, slug string, chunk pages large code, full returns everything and ignores chunk). The gap is that it never states whether id and slug are alternatives, which one wins, or what units chunk uses.

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?

States a specific retrieval resource and enumerates what comes back: HTML/Tailwind source, preview image, and page URL. It is clearly a 'fetch the full detail for one component' tool, distinct from aura_search_components by virtue of returning source. It does not, however, explicitly name a sibling it supersedes or is superseded by.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent infers this is the detail-fetch following a search, and the chunk/full notes hint at when to page vs. pull everything. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' and no statement of prerequisites such as needing a valid id or slug obtained elsewhere.

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