basecoat_component_syntax

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds useful behavioral detail about the payload (pre-configured FSM state variants plus dependencies), but says nothing about return format, size, or limits.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the stage tag and the core action, with no wasted clauses. It is appropriately sized for the tool, though the bracketed stage marker is meta-scaffolding rather than tool-specific content.

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 output schema, the description does carry the burden of explaining the return value, and it does so ('copy-pasteable markup with state variants and dependencies'). Combined with annotations covering safety and a 100%-covered schema, the definition is nearly complete, with only the absence of sibling disambiguation as a gap.

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 all nine parameters are already documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description echoes the state variants and dependencies but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond what the schema provides, and does not clarify the four alias parameters.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Retrieve copy-pasteable Basecoat component markup') and adds scope (57 components, FSM state variants, dependencies). However, it never distinguishes itself from lookalike siblings such as get_component_html or get_component_syntax, so an agent still has to guess which retrieval tool to pick.

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 '[STAGE 3: SYNTAX & STACKS]' label and 'Next step: Call basecoat_quality_inspector' give workflow context, which implies when this tool fits. But there is no explicit when-not guidance and no comparison to the sibling retrieval tools that appear to do overlapping work.

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