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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It indicates this is a read-only enumeration, describes the content of the response (slug, purpose, category, system vs. glass), and adds a performance trait ('cheap'). It stops short of describing output structure, ordering, or pagination, but for a simple discovery tool this is reasonably transparent.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and return fields, followed by a usage hint and filter note. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple list tool with no required parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core needs: what is returned, the optional filters, and the 'call first' purpose. It could be more complete by naming when to switch to get_component/find_component or describing the shape of each component entry, but those are minor gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds that tech and category are optional filters and implies the tech enum maps to iOS system controls vs. custom glass. However, it does not explain the category values or how filters compose, leaving some meaning to be inferred from the schema enums.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and identifies the exact resource ('shipped @recipebooq/ui components') and the fields returned (slug, purpose, category, iOS-system vs. glass). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like find_component and get_component, which imply targeted lookup rather than broad enumeration.

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 explicitly says 'Call this first; it is cheap', giving clear guidance on when to use the tool. It also mentions optional filtering by category or tech. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with find_component/get_component for targeted lookups, so the 'when-not-to-use' guidance is missing.

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