list_mixins

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the corpus size (160) and that only public mixins are returned, but it says nothing about pagination despite limit/offset parameters existing, nor about return shape or ordering.

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 tight sentences with the inventory scope front-loaded and the filtering options immediately after. No filler, though the long source list is slightly list-heavy for the information it conveys.

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 four-parameter list tool with no output schema and 25% schema coverage, the description covers the domain (what mixins exist, how to filter) but omits pagination behavior and result ordering, which an agent needs to page correctly through 160 items.

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 coverage is only 25% (only 'component' is documented). The description compensates partially by enumerating the valid category values (core/layout/animation/icons/generator/component/recipe), which the schema lacks as an enum, but limit and offset remain unexplained in both places.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (@mixins) plus scope: 'all 160 public @mixins across core, layout, animation, icons, generator, per-component and recipe sources.' That is concrete and distinguishes it from a search-style tool, though it never names search_mixins or get_mixin as alternatives.

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 second sentence tells the agent how to narrow results ('Filter by category ... or component name'), which implies the browse-and-filter use case. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use versus search_mixins, and no guidance on when the unfiltered full listing is appropriate.

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