Get team components

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true but the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: auto-pagination via 'meta.cursor.after' and the required OAuth scope. It discloses the endpoint's operational behavior without contradicting the read-only annotation.

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 compact line that front-loads the endpoint and resource, then adds key behavioral details (auto-pagination, scope). Every token contributes useful information with no filler.

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 read-only list operation with no output schema, the description covers the essential context: the resource type, team scope, pagination behavior, and required OAuth scope. It does not explain result shape, but the absence of an output schema and the read-only annotation reduce that need.

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 all four parameters are already documented. The description itself only restates the team path parameter indirectly; it does not add semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the exact endpoint and resource: GET /v1/teams/{team_id}/components, describing them as 'published team library components.' This is precise and distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_file_components and get_team_component_sets by naming both the team scope and the component resource.

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 context—team library components—but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives such as get_file_components or get_team_component_sets. There are no exclusions or selection criteria stated.

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