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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description goes beyond by disclosing pagination via 'nextCursor', the return format (name + one-line description), and the list of available categories. This adds meaningful behavioral context that is not present in the annotations.

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 compact: a purpose statement, a usage directive, a pagination note, and a category list. Each sentence serves a distinct purpose, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description specifies what is returned (name + one-line description) and how pagination works. Combined with the rich annotations and clear usage context, it is fully complete for a list tool of this complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by listing the valid categories (e.g., Graphiques, Feedback), which the schema does not provide as an enum, and reinforces how to reuse 'nextCursor' for pagination.

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 it lists components of the Blueprint Modular design system with name and one-line description. It explicitly frames the use case as browsing the catalog or discovering what exists in a category, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_components, get_component, and suggest_composition tools.

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 provides explicit usage context ('À UTILISER pour parcourir le catalogue ou découvrir ce qui existe dans une catégorie donnée'), making the primary use case clear. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools by name, so it falls short of the full 5.

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