list_components

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses an important scope constraint (components 'available on this server'), but does not describe output format, ordering, pagination, or confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'list'. Adequate for a simple operation, but lacks richer behavioral context.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and every sentence adds value. No fluff or redundancy.

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 parameterless listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed, the scope (this server), and the intended use case. While it doesn't specify the return shape, the simplicity of a list tool makes this an acceptable gap.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema covers 100% (empty schema). Baseline for 0 params is 4. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but none is needed.

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 'Lists the documented components of GovBR Design System available on this server' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by framing this as the discovery gateway for which GovBR-DS components can be queried, contrasting with get_component and search_docs.

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 explicit usage context: 'Use to discover which GovBR-DS components can be consulted.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusionary conditions. A clear, non-exhaustive guidance.

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