list_components

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint: true, so the description isn't required to restate that. It adds no additional context (e.g., return format, scope, rate limits), but it doesn't contradict the annotation. The description is adequate but adds no extra behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation.

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: 'Get all available shadcn/ui v4 components.' It is front-loaded and contains no fluff, making it easy to parse.

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?

The description is minimal and adequate for a simple listing tool, but since there is no output schema, it could benefit from specifying what information is returned (e.g., component names, IDs, or metadata) and how it relates to sibling tools like get_component. Without these details, an agent might not know what to expect from the result.

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?

There are no parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. The baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4, and the description doesn't need to explain any parameters. This score 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 it lists all available shadcn/ui v4 components. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the 'all available' phrasing implies a listing function, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component that retrieve individual components. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with siblings, so it falls short of a 5.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While 'all available' hints at an overview purpose, the description doesn't explicitly mention using it over get_component or other siblings, nor does it state when not to use it. This is a notable gap given the rich sibling list.

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