list_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic listing behavior and does not disclose return shape, whether hidden or locked components are included, how pageId filtering affects results, or any read-only or authorization expectations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is easy to parse, though it is terse enough that some behavioral details are left unstated.

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 list operation with one optional parameter, the description is minimally viable, but it lacks return-value details and does not clarify what counts as a 'component' (local only, component sets, instances?). With no output schema and no annotations, this leaves meaningful ambiguity for an agent choosing among many sibling tools.

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 single optional pageId parameter already has a clear schema description ('Filter to specific page'), giving 100% schema coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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'), the resource ('components'), and the scope ('in the file'). It is specific enough to stand alone, though it doesn't explicitly distinguish components from component sets/instances or from related sibling tools like extract_components or component_audit.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_pages, get_page_structure, or extract_components. The description only states the action; it does not provide exclusions or selection criteria, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage.

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