Get a copy-ready component bundle

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds value by disclosing the exact returned artifacts and a hard behavioral rule ('Never rewrite a component from its summary'). It does not discuss volume, latency, or what happens when a requested component is not found, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the returned payload, then when to call it, then the input mode and the key constraint. No filler or restated title.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating what comes back, and it supplies the workflow ordering an agent needs. The remaining gap is edge behavior — multiple components in one call, missing components, and how project_context affects results — none of which is stated.

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 description coverage is 100%, including the components/requirements derivation rule, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description's 'component names or a requirements brief' only restates that contract without adding syntax or format detail, which is the baseline-3 case.

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 verb (Return) and an enumerated resource payload: source, copy target, dependencies, adaptation notes, replacement guidance and feedback questions for one or more components. This 'copy-ready bundle' framing is clearly distinct from the summary-oriented siblings list_components and get_component_details, so an agent can pick it without opening a schema.

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 explicit sequencing — 'Use this after asking for requirements and before writing or editing code' — and states the required input mode ('Provide component names or a requirements brief'). It stops short of naming alternatives or a when-not condition (e.g. use get_component_details when you only need metadata), so it is clear context rather than full routing.

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