list_components

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully describes the behavior: listing all components with metadata. It could mention if there are no components or pagination, but for a simple list operation, it is sufficient.

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 sentences: the first clearly states the purpose and outputs, the second provides usage context. No unnecessary words; information is front-loaded and well-structured.

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 no output schema and low complexity, the description provides all necessary information: what the tool does, what metadata it returns, and how it fits with sibling tools (get_component). It is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the input schema is fully covered. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4; the description does not need to add parameter details, and it does not repeat schema information.

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 explicitly states the tool lists all reusable email components with specific metadata fields (name, subcategory, description, VML requirement, responsiveness). It clearly distinguishes from siblings by indicating it should be used before get_component.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use this first to discover what components exist before calling get_component.' This tells the agent when to use this tool and that get_component is an alternative for specific component details.

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