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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, it states that the call returns ids and rowVersions and explains the effect of includeUsageCounts. It also clarifies that versionId and includeUsageCounts only apply at the spec level, so there are no surprise side effects.

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 and front-loaded, with no redundant filler. Each sentence carries distinct information about scope, parameters, returns, and alternatives.

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?

It covers the essential call context, including level, required specId, project context, and return purpose. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the response shape beyond 'ids and rowVersions' would make it fully complete, but the core usage is clear.

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?

Although the schema already describes each parameter, the description adds practical semantics: specId is required for level='spec', versionId and includeUsageCounts are spec-level-only, and includeUsageCounts controls reference counts. This goes beyond the baseline schema coverage.

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 opens with a clear verb-resource pairing, 'List header components', and immediately scopes it by level (spec/project). It also distinguishes itself from the organization-level alternative, list_org_header_components, and from related tools like get_header_component.

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 when to use the tool ('Use this for spec or project level') and names the alternative for organization level. It also notes the requirement for project context, which orients an agent before calling.

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