list_components

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so fairly well: it discloses the return shape, the truncation flag, the pagination recovery step (offset += limit), depth bounding, and that bboxes are world-coordinate millimeters. It stops short of stating read-only/safety characteristics or any rate limits, so it is strong but not complete.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then return shape, then pagination recovery — a logical order. The brace-notation field lists are dense but information-carrying, and nothing is redundant; it is slightly long for the task but every clause earns its place.

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 paginated read tool with five documented parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description supplies everything an agent needs: scope, pagination contract, depth semantics, response variants, and coordinate units. Nothing material is missing.

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%, so the schema already defines all five parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description still adds genuine meaning on top: the concrete effect of response_format on bbox_mm, the default max_depth of 3 and its interaction with recursive, and the pagination arithmetic using offset and limit.

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 and resource: list groups and component instances in the model, with pagination noted. It is clear what the tool returns, but it never names or contrasts with siblings like find_components or get_component_info, leaving the agent to infer that filtering belongs elsewhere.

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?

Usage is only implied through parameter hints ('Set recursive=true to descend into nested components'), which is really parameter guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There is no statement of when to prefer this over find_components for searching, or when get_component_info is the better call for a single item.

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