list_mixins

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully says the mixins are public and gives the total count and source categories, but it does not describe pagination behavior, response format, or how limit and offset interact with the listing.

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 tightly written sentences. The count, scope, and available filters are front-loaded with no filler, and both sentences directly help an agent decide whether and how to call the tool.

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 list tool with four parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description provides enough to understand the resource and primary filters. It is incomplete regarding pagination semantics and the returned structure, which an agent may need in order to call it correctly.

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 only 25%, so the description should compensate. It does add meaningful semantics for category by enumerating allowed values (core/layout/animation/icons/generator/component/recipe) that are absent from the schema, and it restates component filtering. It leaves limit and offset unexplained.

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), with the exact scope of 157 public mixins and their source categories. It is clearly distinguishable from get_mixin and search_mixins in practice, though it does not explicitly name those siblings 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 description implies usage by noting that results can be filtered by category or component name, which tells an agent how to narrow the list. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and does not point to search_mixins as a text-search alternative.

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