list_components

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It states that only summaries are returned with specific fields and explicitly notes 'no HTML payload,' which is a key behavior that prevents misuse. It also mentions pagination, but omits details on ordering, caching, or error behavior. This is solid disclosure for a read-only list tool.

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 three sentences, with the first sentence stating the core purpose, the second clarifying return payload and directing to an alternative, and the third mentioning the optional filter. No word is wasted, and the key information is front-loaded.

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, the description covers the essential aspects: what it lists, pagination, return format, and relationship to get_component. It lacks an explicit mention of sorting order or error behavior, but for a list operation with a well-defined schema, this is largely adequate. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit list of returned fields.

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 descriptions already cover category (case-sensitive, matches repo folder) and author (optional handle). The description adds 'pagination' to imply limit/offset and 'filter by author' to reinforce the author parameter. However, it does not explain how pagination works (e.g., offset meaning) or the default/maximum for limit, so the description only partially compensates for the 50% 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 opens with 'List components in a specific category with pagination,' clearly specifying the action (list), resource (components), and scope (category). It also distinguishes from the sibling tool get_component by stating 'Call get_component to fetch actual HTML/CSS,' which differentiates this summary-listing tool from the full-payload tool.

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 provides clear usage context: it returns summaries only, so agents should use this for browsing listing views. It explicitly directs users to get_component when full HTML/CSS is needed. However, it does not mention alternative listing tools like search_components or list_categories, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over those.

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