List Components

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and resource, but fails to mention potential traits such as pagination, performance considerations, or whether the list is cached. The agent has no information on what the response looks like or any side effects.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with no extraneous words. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 simplicity (zero parameters, no output schema), the description minimally covers the tool's purpose. However, it omits any indication of the return format (e.g., list of IDs, names, or full objects). With siblings that provide more detailed information, the agent may need to guess what this tool returns.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter context. Per the scaling rule, baseline is 4 for zero parameters. The description is adequate for this parameter count.

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 the action ('list') and the resource ('all available components in the design system'), distinguishing it from siblings like get_component_info (which retrieves details of a specific component) and generate_component_scaffold (which creates a new 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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., get_component_info). While the purpose is straightforward, an agent might benefit from knowing that this tool returns a full list, whereas other tools serve specific needs like getting details or generating components.

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