list-site-components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the grouping semantics (groups do not determine placement) and that unresolved IDs are surfaced under an 'Unresolved' key per group, which tells the agent how to interpret partial results. It does not cover pagination or return size, keeping it short of a 5.

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-loads what the tool returns, then the critical scope clarification, then the edge-case behavior. Four compact sentences, none redundant, each earning its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return shape, and it does so well (grouped by Available Renderings groups, Unresolved per group). The main remaining gap is that it does not mention the shape of individual rendering entries or ordering, but for a list tool this is largely sufficient.

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 all three parameters (path, database, siteName) are already documented with examples and the either/or requirement. The description adds only marginal meaning (path is 'inside the site'), so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (lists the renderings a site makes available) and immediately clarifies the scope by naming the grouping structure. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get-allowed-components-by-placeholder, so an agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-not: 'This is the site's component inventory, NOT an allow-list' and routes the agent to the correct alternative tool with the condition that selects it. Nothing about usage selection is left to inference.

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