Get file component sets

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds the scope 'published component sets in a file library' but does not disclose pagination, response format, or any filtering behavior. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.

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 front-loads the HTTP verb and resource path. It is efficient and contains no filler. It could add a bit more context about what 'published component sets' means, but it earns a 4 for brevity and clarity.

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 simple read-only list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, it doesn't mention whether the response is paginated, what fields are returned, or how it differs from get_file_components. Given the sibling tools and the lack of an output schema, a bit more context would help an agent select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the single 'file' parameter. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but the schema is sufficient. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'GET /v1/files/{key}/component_sets — published component sets in a file library.' It clearly identifies what the tool returns and the scope (file library). It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_file_components or get_team_component_sets, but the resource path and 'published component sets in a file library' make the purpose reasonably clear.

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 implies usage context: it is for retrieving published component sets from a file library. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_team_component_sets or get_file_components. The sibling list provides context but the description itself offers no when/when-not guidance.

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