get_component

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Get' (implying a read) and mentions the included content, but does not address potential failure modes, error behavior, authentication requirements, rate limits, or any side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool that has no annotation fallback.

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 exactly two short sentences with no filler. The primary action and key example are front-loaded, and the additional output note is brief. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately concise for the information it conveys.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves critical gaps. It does not explain what 'docs overview' or 'story variant ids' mean, the effect of the optional parameters, or the default behavior. An agent would likely need to probe the tool or refer to other documentation to call it confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the 'component' parameter via the name/path wording and examples, but provides no explanation for 'maxContentLength' or 'includeOverviewContent'. These two optional parameters are left completely unexplained, leaving the agent unsure about their effect and defaults.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('component'), and the lookup method ('by name or path') with concrete examples ('Alert, Components/Alert'). It also indicates return content ('docs overview and story variant ids'), distinguishing this from sibling tools like list_components or get_component_config.

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 implies usage when you need a single component's details by name or path, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or conditions. There is no reference to list_components for listing all components or get_component_config for configuration-only needs, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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