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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: 'no source bodies or legacy thumbnail substitution,' the draft-status disclaimer about visual review/licensing, default page size of 20 with forward-only cursor pagination, and recommended-tier-first ordering. This is far richer than the safety-only annotation profile.

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 bloated, cramming two protocols, identity-pinning rules, package-handling, scene-shot exclusions, and tool routing into one dense block. The core purpose appears mid-way rather than up front, and the caps-lock 'DISCOVER WHAT TO BUILD WITH' framing is gimmicky. It is not appropriately sized or front-loaded for a list tool.

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 carries the burden of explaining returns, and it does describe card shape (identity.scope/revision, preset/recipe identities) and pagination via nextCursor. For a 12-parameter, zero-required tool with two modes, the coverage is broad and mostly sufficient, though the two divergent protocols make it hard to tell which fields apply when.

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 83%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter and the baseline is 3. The description mostly enumerates filter params (category, kind, tier, useCase, mood, q, intent) that the schema already covers, and it references sourceVersionId and builtinCollection, which do not appear in the input schema at all. It adds little parameter meaning beyond the structured data.

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 clear verb+resource and scope: 'DISCOVER WHAT TO BUILD WITH — list the component catalog: the built-in primitive catalog plus your org-installed components.' It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying not to pass package ids to clip.add, get_component_source, or cueframe://component resources. The primary statement of purpose is buried mid-description behind two projection-mode sentences, which weakens the front-loaded clarity.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use routing: origin:'builtin' vs origin:'library', when to call resolve_builtin_component then apply_template, and when to use get_component_source to fork a primitive. It also names an exclusion — scene shots are not listed here and should be authored with scene.add instead. Alternatives and conditions are spelled out, not implied.

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