gh_component_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. The description adds that the tool lists only components on the active canvas, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but does not disclose additional behavioral traits (e.g., performance, pagination, or return format).

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, no fluff, front-loaded with the key action and resource. Perfectly concise.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, output schema exists, annotations provided), the description is mostly complete. It specifies the scope (active canvas) and optional filter. Missing are details on what constitutes a 'component' and any limitations, but these are likely implied.

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 input schema has one parameter (filter) with a description: 'Substring to filter component nicknames by.' The tool description does not mention the parameter, but the schema description is adequate. Baseline is 3 due to good schema coverage.

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 resource 'components currently on the active canvas', with optional filtering. This distinguishes it from siblings like gh_components_search (which searches libraries) and rhino_list_objects (Rhino-specific).

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus similar tools like gh_components_search or gh_plugin_list. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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