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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It implies a read-only operation ('lists') but does not mention the return format, pagination, or error behavior. This is adequate for a basic list, but could be more explicit about side effects or constraints.

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 concise, using two short sentences with no redundant information. It is well-structured and immediately understandable.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool and that no output schema is provided, the description is complete enough for an agent to know what it does and how to invoke it. It could benefit from a brief note on return structure, but that is not critical for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The schema has one parameter with a full description and examples of valid categories ('heros', 'forms', 'cta'). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, making the parameter's purpose and values clear.

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 the tool 'lists components of the library' with an optional filter by category slug. This is a specific verb (list) and resource (components), and it is easily distinguished from sibling tools that list other entities like categories or images.

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?

The description indicates that the tool can optionally filter by category slug, providing concrete usage guidance. It does not explicitly mention when to use this over search_components, but the simple list purpose is clear enough for typical use cases.

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