rest_get_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action 'List' without noting that it is read-only, any authentication needs, rate limits, or error behavior. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the literal action, leaving significant ambiguity for a tool that could potentially be a heavy 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and object. There is no redundant or extraneous information, making it highly efficient for its purpose.

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 (1 param, no output schema), the description provides a reasonable hint about the return content by listing what it returns (component definitions, sets, documentation links). However, it does not clarify the output format, potential pagination, or error conditions. Since no annotations or output schema exist, the description could be more informative but is minimally adequate.

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% for the single parameter fileKey, which already documents its meaning. The description does not add any additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the specific resources: component library definitions, component sets, and documentation links. It is specific and distinct from generic file operations, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like rest_get_file or rest_get_file_nodes.

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 (when you need component library information), but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. No context is given about fileKey requirements or relationship to other listing tools.

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