solution_components

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint and openWorldHint. The description adds valuable behavioral detail: offline mode returns manifest fields, root components, and missing dependencies; live mode returns per-type rows with resolved names versus object IDs. This exceeds what annotations alone convey.

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 compact, well-labeled with Offline/Live, and each clause adds substantive information. The only mild weakness is the opening phrase 'What a solution contains,' which restates the tool name.

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?

Despite the absence of an output schema, the description gives substantial return-value detail. However, it omits the meaning of 'environment,' potential error cases, and any preconditions, so it is not fully complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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 0% description coverage, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clearly defines 'source' and 'solution' but never explicitly explains the 'environment' parameter, leaving one of the three parameters ambiguous.

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 what the tool reports—the components contained in a solution—and distinguishes offline (source) and live (solution) modes with concrete output details. It does not use an explicit action verb like 'lists,' but it is far from a tautology.

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 maps usage to parameters: use 'source' for a solution zip/folder and 'solution' for a live unique name. It does not compare against sibling tools or state when not to use it, but the offline/live distinction gives clear context.

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