library

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the return shape for both modes and mentions the separate @reelsmith/kit reference path — genuinely useful behavioral context. However, it never states that this is a read-only lookup, what happens if `name` does not match a known component, or whether built-in presets and user library entries are distinguishable in the output.

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?

Three sentences with little waste, and the listing behavior is stated first. But the structure buries the crucial `name` mode-switch mid-sentence and uses an awkward fragment ('name, source, what it is and its prop names') rather than clean parallel phrasing.

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 annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description does a decent job covering what each mode returns. It falls short on the required `project` parameter, error behavior for unknown names, and any hook into the broader tool workflow, which matters for a lookup tool that feeds downstream authoring.

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 explains `name` well via the 'With `name`, one component in full' clause and implies listing when omitted, but the required `project` parameter is never mentioned anywhere in the description or schema, leaving half the parameters undocumented.

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 makes clear this is a component library lookup with two modes: without `name` it lists available components (name, source, description, prop names), and with `name` it returns one component in full including props schema, example props, and the source file to read as a model. The verb is left implicit and the wording is convoluted in places, but the resource and the two-mode behavior are unambiguous.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus siblings like `describe` or `assets`, nor any workflow cue such as 'call this before writing a component clip' — which is clearly the intended use given the 'source file to read as a model' hint. The agent must infer the situation from the return-content description alone.

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