list_components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the schema and annotations provide. It does not mention pagination behavior, performance considerations, or error cases.

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 of 18 words, front-loaded with the core functionality. Every word earns its place; there is no repetition or fluff.

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 6 parameters, an output schema, and several sibling tools, the description is concise but lacks depth. It does not explain the two modes (list vs. single lookup) in detail, nor does it provide guidance on response structure or pagination. The presence of an output schema partially compensates, but the description could be more complete for agent decision-making.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds context for 'prefix' (filter by type) and 'reference' (single component lookup), which aligns with the schema descriptions. It does not add meaning for 'path', 'offset', 'limit', or 'format' beyond what the schema provides.

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 it lists components in a circuit file with optional filtering by prefix or single component lookup. The verb 'List' and resource 'components' are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like 'component_info' or 'query_value', but the purpose is still clear.

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 gives guidance on when to use filtering versus single lookup, but it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives. For example, it does not say to use 'component_info' for detailed component information or when to prefer 'list_components' over other listing tools.

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