列出问卷组件规范

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

No annotations provided, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It states it lists registered components but does not mention pagination, ordering, or response structure. Minimal transparency for a simple list operation.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with purpose. Adequately concise for a zero-parameter tool, though it could add a bit more context without harm.

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?

No output schema or annotations, so description is the sole source. It does not specify what fields are returned (e.g., name, ID, constraints). For a list tool, this is minimally adequate but could be more complete.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 all registered component specifications in the questionnaire system. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_component_rule (single rule) and validate_component_usage (validation).

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?

Usage context is implied (when you need to see all components), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives or when not to use.

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