List Components By Status

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

Annotations already declare `readOnlyHint: true`, and the description adds useful non-obvious context: the library-specific behavior, the complete set of valid statuses, the default library, and the uiKitItalia limitation (Figma-only). It does not describe the response format, but an output schema is present, so the description carries acceptable weight for a read-only filter 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 only three sentences and front-loads the core action. Every sentence earns its place: the first states the operation and main parameters, the second lists valid values, and the third covers a limitation and points to the sibling alternative. No filler or redundant restating.

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 modest complexity, a complete input schema, a read-only annotation, and an output schema, the description covers all essential operational details: valid statuses, library choices and default, an explicit limitation, and a clear alternative. There are no critical gaps that would leave an agent guessing.

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 already describes both parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by enumerating every accepted status value, specifying the default library (`bootstrapItalia`), and warning that uiKitItalia is unsupported, which adds meaningful parameter-level guidance.

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 a specific verb ('Lists') and clearly names the resource ('Design System .italia components') and the filtering dimension (implementation status). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling `dsi_list_components` by noting its per-library filtering and explicitly pointing to that sibling for full overview.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use dsi_list_components for full status overview.' It also clarifies that uiKitItalia is not filterable here (Figma-only), provides the default library, and enumerates all valid status values, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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