List Components

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true is complemented by rich behavioral details: the description explains that each component is a single entity with two possible implementations, and that bsi and devkit subobjects can be null. This goes beyond the mere read-only hint and discloses the inventory's structure and null semantics, which is valuable for an agent.

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?

Two sentences deliver a dense but clear description. Front-loaded with the main purpose, then details of output structure and null semantics, plus a usage directive. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: one row per component, with specific keys and null behavior. Combined with usage guidance and clear scoping, it is complete for a list tool. The sibling context shows many related tools, but this description sufficiently distinguishes itself.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description adds relevant output semantics (rows, fields, nulls) but no parameter-specific information is needed. It appropriately explains the tool's behavior without parameter overhead.

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 uses a specific verb 'Lists' and clearly identifies the resource: 'all Design System .italia components as a single unified inventory'. It also details the output structure with bsi and devkit fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like bsi_list_component_variants or devkit_list_component_variants by focusing on a unified component list rather than variants.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Call before fetching markup, tokens or props.' This sets clear context for when to use the tool. Additionally, it explains how to filter for BSI-only or DevKit-only components using null fields, providing practical usage direction. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear.

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