list_ui_systems

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'List available...' clearly signals a read-only enumeration operation, which is transparent. However, it does not disclose default limit behavior, ordering, or response shape; for a simple list tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and compact enough to be easily parsed. The parenthetical filter list is a reasonable way to convey the optional filtering capability without bloating the description.

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 description is adequate for a straightforward listing operation, but it omits some available filters and provides no differentiation from sibling search tools. With no output schema or annotations, a bit more context about defaults or result behavior would make it fully complete.

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 all parameters. The description adds a useful summary of filter dimensions, but it is slightly imprecise: 'accessibility' is not a separate parameter, and darkMode, rtlSupport, and opinionatedLevel are omitted. Overall it does not add significant meaning beyond the schema.

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 names the operation ('List') and the resource ('available UI design systems and component libraries'), and it mentions optional metadata filters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling search_ui_systems, but the verb + resource combination is specific enough to understand the core purpose.

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 gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over search_ui_systems, compare_ui_systems, or recommend_ui_systems. It implies a listing/filtering use case, but it never states exclusions, prerequisites, or scenarios where a sibling would be more appropriate.

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