Elenca i componenti disponibili

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

The description reveals it's a read-only listing operation (id, name, category) which is a safe scope disclosure. No annotations are provided, so description carries the burden, but it doesn't disclose potential behaviors like whether results are paginated, ordered, or reflect multiple versions of the design system. It does convey that this is a discovery tool tied to the PA design system.

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 compact 3-sentence paragraph. It front-loads the purpose, then adds usage context and constraints. Slightly verbose with the accessibility/design system reminders that may apply more broadly to generated markup than to this specific listing tool, but it's still efficient overall.

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 listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. However, since there's no output schema, it doesn't clarify the return shape beyond 'id, nome, categoria'. Given the sibling list_webcomponents exists, more clarity on the difference (vanilla vs web components) would improve completeness for an agent choosing between them.

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 the schema already documents the category parameter. The description adds category examples (form, navigazione, layout, contenuti, azioni, feedback) that go beyond the schema's single 'form' example, providing richer meaning about valid category values. With 100% coverage, the baseline is 3, and the added examples justify a 4.

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 Italian description is clear: it lists available Bootstrap Italia components (id, name, category). It distinguishes from siblings somewhat by focusing on the discovery/listing function, though it doesn't explicitly name an alternative like search_component for lookup-by-query use cases.

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 explicitly says to use this tool to discover what exists before generating a UI, giving clear usage context. It also provides negative guidance (don't substitute generic Bootstrap, Tailwind, or non-conforming markup). However, it doesn't distinguish this from the sibling list_webcomponents or search_component explicitly.

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