Get Component Code

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve' which implies a read-only operation, but does not disclose output format, whether multiple files are returned, error behavior, or dependencies on framework support (e.g., react/angular coming soon). This is minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotation safety net.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core functionality. Every word adds value; no filler or redundant 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?

Given five parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what 'real source code' returns (single file vs. full project), how examples are integrated, or the implications of the framework parameter's limited support. This is insufficient for a tool with this 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?

The schema describes componentName, variant, and framework but leaves includeExamples and includeDependencies undescribed. The tool description mentions 'examples' which hints at includeExamples, but does not clarify includeDependencies or the default behavior of the boolean flags. It adds some context around variants/examples but does not fully compensate for the 60% schema coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Retrieve' and clearly identifies the resource as 'real source code of specific Material 3 component', adding 'with variants and examples' to distinguish from sibling tools like list_material_components and get_design_tokens. This clearly states the tool's function and scope.

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 for obtaining source code for a known component, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_material_components or suggest_components_for_use_case. It lacks any exclusions or alternative references, so guidance is only implied.

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