Find a measured component

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavior: it ranks up to three items, includes only verified/rendering components, and excludes failure warnings. This goes beyond annotations. However, it does not explain what 'verified' means or how 'measured harness results' affect ranking.

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 and relatively concise. No superfluous words. However, the first sentence is dense and could be restructured for clarity. It front-loads the core action but the phrasing 'using prose, pattern, style, and measured harness results' is somewhat run-on.

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 the tool has four parameters (one required), three optional filters, and an output schema exists, the description provides basic operational context. It explains the return count and filtering of failures. However, it omits important context like what 'measured harness results' are, why 'failure warnings' are excluded, and how the ranking works. The description is adequate but leaves gaps for an agent to infer.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description references 'prose, pattern, style, and measured harness results' but 'prose' does not directly map to any parameter (likely 'task'). It adds some context but also introduces ambiguity. The palette parameter is not mentioned, so the description doesn't fully compensate or clarify parameter roles beyond the schema.

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 ranks up to three verified React components for a UI task using specific criteria. The verb 'rank' and resource 'components' are explicit. While it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'find_template', the mention of 'measured harness results' hints at the differentiator. However, 'prose' is ambiguous and could be clearer.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'find_template' or 'check_component'. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or context where this tool is preferred. The description assumes the agent knows when to invoke it.

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