get_component_html

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context — the empty-argument catalog fallback and the valid-ID universe — but says nothing about output size, caching, or template resolution behavior.

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 tight sentences with the return value front-loaded and the follow-up action last. No filler, though the "Valid IDs" fragment reads slightly like a note rather than prose.

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 the necessary work by naming what comes back (HTML markup plus dependencies, or the catalog index). It is adequate for a zero-required-parameter fetch tool, missing only return-shape specifics.

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 coverage is 100%, so id/name/componentId/environment are fully documented in the schema. The description contributes only the no-argument catalog case and the count of valid IDs, which is marginal value over structured fields.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fetch HTML markup template and dependencies for a Basecoat component") and adds scope detail (57 valid IDs, catalog index on empty call). It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_component_details, so the agent must infer the difference.

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?

Gives concrete routing guidance: empty-object calls return the top-level catalog index, and it names the follow-up tools (validate_composition, basecoat_quality_inspector). It stops short of stating when NOT to use this versus get_component_details.

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