get_component_by_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. 'Retrieve' signals a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permission requirements, error behavior for missing items, or rate limits. For a simple read it is adequate but not rich.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler. Slightly awkward repetition of 'store' but every clause carries lookup-relevant 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?

With only two schema-documented parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the 'what' but not the return shape or edge-case behavior. An agent could call it correctly, but a note on what 'component details' includes or on missing-item handling would close the gap.

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%, with shop enumerations and item_id meaning fully documented in the schema. The description's wording mirrors the schema ('store identifier', 'store's internal item ID') rather than adding format examples or ID-vs-URL-path nuance beyond it. Baseline 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?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('component details') and pins down the lookup mechanism (store identifier + store's internal item ID). This implicitly distinguishes it from get_component_by_slug, though the sibling is never named.

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 phrase 'using a specific store identifier and store's internal item ID' hints at when this lookup applies, but the tool never explicitly contrasts itself with get_component_by_slug or search_components, nor states prerequisites or failure conditions (e.g., unknown shop/id).

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