21st_magic_component_inspiration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the tool returns JSON data without generating code, only provides text snippets, and requires post-call file editing. However, it misses details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. It adds value beyond the schema but doesn't fully cover behavioral traits.

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 front-loaded with the tool's purpose but includes redundant phrasing (e.g., 'This tool returns...' repeated). The sentence about post-call actions ('After calling this tool...') is useful but could be integrated more smoothly. It's moderately concise but has some inefficiencies.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 2 parameters with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the tool's purpose and basic behavior but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration specifics. For a retrieval tool with siblings, it should provide more context on differentiation and usage scenarios.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('message' and 'searchQuery') with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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's purpose: to fetch and return JSON data of matching UI components from 21st.dev for inspiration or previews. It specifies the tool does not generate new code and only returns text snippets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like '21st_magic_component_builder' or '21st_magic_component_refiner' beyond stating it doesn't generate code.

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 provides some usage context: 'when the user wants to see component, get inspiration, or fetch data and previews from 21st.dev.' It implies this is for retrieval rather than creation or refinement, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'builder' or 'refiner' siblings. The guidance is present but lacks clear differentiation.

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