Find Component Code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently explains the tool performs live searches of web docs and repos (which implies network/read-only behavior) and specifies what it returns. It doesn't discuss rate limits or error behavior, but for a search tool this is sufficient core transparency.

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?

Two sentences with the purpose, source list, return types, and key parameters included. It is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description specifies return categories (doc pages, source links, snippets), lists major sources, and names framework/keywords for refinement. It doesn't mention defaults (React, 10 results), but the schema covers those. Overall it is sufficiently complete for a search 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaning by explicitly explaining the roles of framework and keywords as refining controls, complementing the schema descriptions. This lifts it above baseline without being redundant.

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?

Description clearly states the verb ('Search') and specific resource ('live web docs and repos') for copy-paste React/Vue/Svelte components, which distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on design inspiration or effects. It also lists return types (doc pages, source links, snippets), fully clarifying what the tool does.

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?

Gives clear context for when to use the tool (finding copy-paste component code) and explains how to refine with framework and keywords. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name sibling alternatives, but the component-code focus implies the boundary.

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