get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'detailed information' without specifying what that includes, nor does it mention output format, errors, permissions, or side effects. The tool is likely a read operation, but this is not disclosed.

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 is front-loaded with the action ('Get detailed information') and the target ('specific Aceternity UI component'). No wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter tool, the description is adequate but vague about what 'detailed information' includes, especially since there is no output schema. The lack of guidance on alternatives and return structure leaves gaps, but the simplicity makes it minimally viable.

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 fully documents the single parameter with a description and example, achieving 100% coverage. The description itself adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 'by its slug'; the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool fetches detailed information about a specific component identified by slug. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_components (which likely returns all) and search_components (which likely finds matching 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 implies usage when you have a specific slug and need detailed data, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool, such as 'use search_components to find a component first.'

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