get_component_syntax

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that output is 'copy-pasteable' markup with FSM state variants bound in, which is useful context, but says nothing about permissions, limits, or fallback 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 short, front-loaded sentences that waste no words. The bracketed stage tag is slightly noisy but does front-load workflow placement.

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 read-only single-resource retrieval tool with no output schema and fully documented parameters, the description covers purpose, source of truth, and output nature. Only the relationship to sibling retrieval tools remains unstated.

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% and all 9 parameters, including 4 enums, are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, default, or interaction guidance beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Retrieve) and resource (Basecoat component markup) plus the key qualifier that it is an alias of basecoat_component_syntax. It also names the scope ('with FSM state variants'), which distinguishes it from a plain markup lookup, though it never contrasts itself with siblings like get_component_html or get_component_details.

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]' prefix implies where this fits in a workflow, and the alias note implies equivalence with basecoat_component_syntax, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-an-alternative guidance against the many sibling retrieval tools.

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