get_component

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it fetches details, but does not mention side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. This is a significant gap.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the action and result, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds value.

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 that the tool has a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic functionality but lacks details on expected URL format, return structure, and behavioral aspects. It is minimally adequate.

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 only parameter 'url' has no description in the schema (0% coverage). The tool description says 'specific Zeplin component' but does not clarify what format or expected content the URL should have, leaving ambiguity.

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 it fetches detailed design specifications for a Zeplin component, listing included properties, variants, layers, and tokens. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_screen (for screens) and get_design_tokens (for tokens).

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 includes a usage hint: 'Use this when you need to understand the structure and styling of a single, reusable UI element.' However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, though sibling tools provide context.

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