aura_inspo_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it partially meets it by tagging the operation '(pure)' (implying no side effects) and enumerating what comes back (inspo.find_components call + aura_search + scaffold_hint, tokens first, weight s|m). It says nothing about authentication, rate limits, or failure behavior, so it is helpful but incomplete.

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?

Front-loaded with the mapping action, then the filter vocabulary, then the return payload — three compact sentences with no filler. The abbreviation-heavy style ('weight s|m', '(pure)') costs a little clarity but the size is appropriate for a two-parameter tool.

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 nested-object tool with no output schema, the description usefully names the three return artifacts and the evidence filter vocabulary. It leaves the 'brief' input, the internal structure of the evidence object, and the meaning of style/macrostructure/mode unspecified, so an agent cannot construct a valid call with confidence.

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% and the evidence object is nested, so the description must compensate. It does list the accepted evidence.type values (hero, pricing, features, cta, nav, footer, testimonial, logo-cloud, faq, stat) plus style/macrostructure/mode, which is real added meaning, but the 'brief' parameter is never mentioned and the shape/optionality of those sub-fields remains undefined.

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 does state a verb+resource pairing ('Map an Inspo component filter onto Aura search'), plus the enumerated evidence.type values and the returned artifacts, so the core operation is identifiable. However, qualifiers like '(pure)' and 'scaffold_hint' are unexplained jargon, and nothing distinguishes this tool from the four other aura_inspo_* siblings (system, compare, recommend, reference).

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisite or ordering relative to aura_inspo_system / aura_inspo_compare / aura_search_components, and no mention of what to do when no filter matches. The agent must infer from the name that this is the discovery/mapping step.

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