list_react_components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior fully. It states what is returned (components, exports, hooks) but omits critical behavioral details such as whether scanning is recursive, whether a loaded project is required, or what the exact output structure looks like. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation support.

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 key concept ('React components') and immediately conveys the core output. It is efficient and has no filler, though it could provide more detail without becoming bloated.

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 list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description gives the essential output categories but does not specify the return format or mention that the project must be loaded first. It is minimally adequate but leaves room for ambiguity, especially for an agent comparing it with similar list tools.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'name' with a clear description ('Name or path of the loaded project'), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description does not add any extra parameter context, 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 clearly identifies what the tool does: lists React components, defined as .tsx/.jsx files with JSX, and includes exports and used hooks. It is specific to React, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_vue_components or list_angular_components, and its focus on exports/hooks separates it from list_react_files.

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 (to get React components with their exports and hooks) but does not explicitly state when to use it instead of alternatives like analyze_react_component or list_react_files. There is no explicit when/when-not guidance, so it relies on inference from the name and description.

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