get_component_details

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

No annotations provided. The description indicates a read operation (retrieving metadata) but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or disclose potential errors, auth needs, or side effects. For a read-only tool, basic transparency is present but could be more explicit.

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 fluff. The main purpose is front-loaded, and every sentence adds value. Efficiently conveys key information.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides essential info but lacks details on return format, error handling, behavior when both parameters are used, and what happens if both are omitted. Adequate but not fully complete.

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 0%. The description adds meaning by stating that the tool accepts either 'name' or 'file_path' as identifiers, implying they are alternatives. However, it does not explain constraints, precedence if both are provided, or what happens if neither is given.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'full metadata for a specific component', and lists specific metadata types (props, slots, events, description, story examples). It also mentions the two parameters, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'list_components'.

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?

The description mentions the tool accepts component name or file_path but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like 'list_components' or 'search_components'. No when-not-to-use or alternative suggestions.

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