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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that by disclosing what is deliberately excluded ('without generated HTML'), i.e. a lightweight listing. It stops short of noting pagination behavior, which limit/offset imply but do not spell out.

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?

Front-loaded with the listing scope, then chained-call instructions; every sentence carries actionable information and none is padding. It is dense with field names in quick succession, which slightly reduces scannability, but there is no waste.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation, and the description supplies the missing piece an agent actually needs: how the output feeds downstream tools. Nothing required to call this correctly is absent.

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%, so projectId, limit, and offset are already fully documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's field-passing guidance concerns returned values (screenId, id), not input parameters, so it adds little input-side semantics.

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 and resource ('List a project's screen names and active version numbers') and adds a distinguishing scope qualifier ('without generated HTML') that separates it from get_component. An agent can tell immediately what this returns versus the code-fetching sibling.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: use get_component only when code is needed, and tells exactly which returned fields feed design, get_component (componentId), and screenshot (componentIds). This is prescriptive when-to-use guidance with a named alternative and the condition that selects it.

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