List By Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description does not add behavioral traits beyond listing allowed values (which are also in schema). It does not mention ordering, pagination, or behavior for invalid statuses. Given the annotations cover the read-only aspect, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 long, front-loaded with purpose, and provides concrete examples. Every sentence adds value with no fluff or repetition.

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 tool has 2 parameters, both fully described in schema and reinforced in description. The description covers the filtering purpose well. However, there is no mention of response format, ordering, or pagination, which could be useful given no output schema. For a simple filter tool, this is a minor 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds example values for library and status, reinforcing the enum and allowed values, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is correct.

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 that the tool lists components filtered by status in a specific library, using specific verbs and resources. It provides explicit examples of available libraries and statuses, and the purpose is distinct from sibling tools like list_components (no filter) and search_components (full-text search).

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 implies when to use—when you need components filtered by both library and status. It does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternative tools, but the examples of libraries and statuses give clear context. The usage is straightforward, so the lack of explicit exclusions is a minor gap.

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