get_available_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states it 'list all available components' with no disclosure of behavioral traits like idempotency, rate limits, or return format. While the action is simple and non-destructive, the description lacks explicit transparency.

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?

A single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the key action and resource. No unnecessary words. Every part of the description adds value.

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 adequate for a simple list tool with one parameter, but it lacks information about what the output looks like (e.g., list of component names or IDs). Given there is no output schema, completeness is moderate. The description does not specify any constraints or edge cases.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a description for the 'library' parameter. The tool description adds no additional per-parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies. The description reinforces the parameter's purpose but does not add new detail.

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?

Description clearly states the action (list), resource (available components), and scope (for a given component library). It specifies the supported libraries (shadcn, radix, headlessui, material) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_available_libraries that list libraries themselves.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage for listing components but does not state prerequisites, limitations, or when to use other tools like setup_component_library or validate_component_library_setup.

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