list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'List' and mentions the optional filter, but does not specify that the operation is read-only, whether it returns all components or only a subset, any permission requirements, or the return format. This is a minimal disclosure for a tool with no annotations and no output schema.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and mentions the optional filter. Every word adds value, with no wasted or redundant phrasing.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, it lacks details about what the returned list contains, any ordering, or limitations, and with no annotations, the agent is left without a complete picture of the tool's behavior.

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 already provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, describing the category filter with valid values. The description only repeats 'optionally filter by category' without adding further meaning, so it stays at the baseline of 3 for high 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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('available interactive components'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_sections and list_templates. The optional filter adds scope without ambiguity.

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 implies usage for listing components and optionally filtering by category, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_sections or list_templates. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer based on the resource name.

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