list_component_api

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It describes the output as a list but does not detail any behavioral aspects like no side effects, authentication, or rate limits. For a simple read-only tool, it's adequate but minimal.

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, direct and to the point. No unnecessary words, effectively communicates the core 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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It states the input and what is returned (components, directives, etc.). Could mention output format, but not essential for a list of API references.

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?

With schema coverage at 100%, the description adds little beyond the schema. The parameter 'componentId' is clearly described in both, but the description provides no extra syntactic or formatting details.

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 returns a list of detailed API references for a given component ID, using a specific verb 'returns' and resource 'list of API references'. It distinguishes from siblings like list_component_topics and list_kendo_components.

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 API references for a component are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The example helps, but no formal guidelines.

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