Get component details

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 context the annotations cannot: the full shape of the returned content (props, variants, dependencies, examples, source code) and the fact that the response is markdown containing a copy target and install instructions. It also discloses a scope trait — both local and marketplace catalogue records are supported.

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, no filler. The payload enumeration comes first, followed by the markdown/install note and the local-vs-marketplace scope. Every clause contributes information an agent would otherwise lack.

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 carries the return-value burden and does so by naming the content categories and the markdown/install framing. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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% and the single parameter's description already enumerates the accepted identifier forms (name, slug, export name, file, import path, catalogue author/slug, record id). The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a precise verb ('Return one component's') and then enumerates the exact payload: metadata, parsed props, CVA variants, dependencies, usage examples, guidelines, related components and source code. That is far more specific than a bare 'get details'. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_component_bundle, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a single-component lookup.

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 it should call this when it needs details for one named component, versus list_components for enumeration. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion or prerequisite, and no mention of when get_component_bundle or get_design_tokens would be the better choice.

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