List evo-web Marko 6 components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered upstream. The description adds genuinely useful non-annotation context: results are grouped by category and the underlying package/tag naming convention (<evo-*>), which shapes how an agent should interpret the output. It stops short of describing pagination or the per-item fields.

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?

Two sentences with zero filler. The resource and scope come first, and the optional filtering guidance follows immediately, so an agent can act after the first sentence and refine after the second.

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, parameter-light listing tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope, naming convention, grouping, and filtering adequately. The only gap is any hint about result volume or item shape, which is minor given the annotations already settle the safety profile.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the query and category parameters are already documented, including the category value list. The description only restates the same filters and adds examples that largely duplicate the schema's own example, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("List the eBay evo-web components") and pins the scope precisely: Marko 6, package @evo-web/marko, tags named <evo-*>. It is clearly distinguished from the singular get_component sibling by naming the resource as a plural listing with no single-target lookup.

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?

It states the optional filters (category or free-text query) and gives concrete query examples ('date picker', 'dropdown'), which tells an agent how to narrow the listing. It never explicitly routes the agent elsewhere — e.g. it does not say to use get_component for a single component's details or search_docs for prose — so there are no explicit exclusions.

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