design_system_available_components

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns documentation and supports both unfiltered and filtered retrieval, but it does not mention whether this is strictly read-only, whether there are authentication constraints, rate limits, or the output format. It adds some context but leaves important behavioral traits unaddressed.

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 and front-loads the registry purpose before mentioning usage and retrieval modes. It is efficient and avoids redundancy, though a small amount of extra detail (e.g., emoji label) is decorative rather than essential.

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 low-complexity, two-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains what is returned, what content areas are covered, and how filtering works. It omits only secondary details like output format and size, which are minor given the tool's nature.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both optional parameters. The description repeats the filtering concept and gives example component names, adding only marginal value beyond the schema. A baseline 3 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Returns comprehensive documentation for all design system components.' It also specifies the discovery intent and the content types (APIs, props, events, examples), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like design_system_standards or modal_best_practices.

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 gives implied usage ('Use this tool to discover available components ... and learn their APIs'), but it never states when to prefer this over alternatives or when not to use it. No sibling tools are referenced or excluded.

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