Get an AI Canvas component (full metadata + source code)

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint. The description adds valuable context by stating the return includes metadata and the entire source code as a string, and emphasizes that 'The source is the exact file the CLI install would write into a project.' This goes beyond the annotations and clarifies the output nature.

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?

The description is three sentences with the primary action front-loaded. The second sentence provides usage context and the third adds a clarifying detail about source exactness. Every sentence serves a purpose with no redundancy.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what is returned (metadata + source code string), when to use it (after selection or before install), and the meaningful detail that it is the exact file the CLI would write. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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% with a descriptive slug parameter that includes examples and instruction to use exact slugs from list/search results. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific information beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool returns 'the complete record for a single component: metadata + the entire .tsx source code as a string.' It differentiates from list/search tools by specifying 'a single component' and 'Use after the user picks one from a search/list result.' This is a specific verb+resource+output with clear differentiation.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: 'Use after the user picks one from a search/list result and wants to see the implementation, or before installing if they want to inspect first.' This tells the agent exactly when to invoke this tool and implies the alternative (using search/list) for finding components.

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