List Tabler UI components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool lists components with optional filtering, but does not mention return format, pagination, case sensitivity, or any side effects. As a read operation, this is minimally adequate but lacks depth.

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 the primary purpose, and contains no redundant words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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 simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main functionality and usage. It could mention that it returns a list or catalogue, but the purpose is clear. Lacks details on ordering or pagination, but these are not critical for this tool.

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 100% with the 'query' parameter described in the schema as 'Optional filter, e.g. form, card'. The description rephrases this as 'Optionally filter with a query.' Since the schema already covers the meaning, the description adds no new value, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 it lists Tabler UI components with examples like alerts, avatars, badges. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'get_component' by directing users there for HTML snippets.

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 explains when to use this tool (list components) and provides an alternative ('get_component' for HTML snippets). It also mentions optional filtering by query, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or compare with other listing tools like 'list_icon_categories'.

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