List appCN components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses the return fields (slug, title, category, description, delight detail) and that it lists all components unless filtered. It does not mention pagination or limits, but for a listing tool this is acceptable.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the purpose and optional filter, then list return fields and the recommended next step. Every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool having one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns, and how to proceed (calling get_component). It is complete for its complexity.

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 already provides a description for the category parameter with enum values and their meanings. The description text merely echoes '[o]ptionally filtered by category,' adding no new semantic value beyond the schema.

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 tool lists all appCN components with an optional category filter, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_component by suggesting to call it next for full details.

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 advises to 'start here' and then call get_component for full details, providing clear context for when to use this tool. It does not explicitly contrast with search_components, but the guidance is sufficient for typical usage.

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