list_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'List' implies a safe read and it discloses the return shape (status plus component instance names), but it omits whether an active assembly is required, what happens when none is open, and whether nested components are excluded. Useful but incomplete for a mutation-free but state-dependent tool.

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 lines, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler. The 'dict[str, Any]' type annotation is mildly redundant given an output schema exists, but it costs little.

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 zero-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the essentials: what is listed, the scope (top-level), the container (active assembly) and the return contents. The only real gap is the precondition/error case when no assembly is active.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No parameter-level content is expected here.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('top-level components of the active assembly'), with scope restricted to top-level items. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_features or list_configurations, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by 'active assembly', which hints that an assembly document must be open first, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not condition, and no pointer to a sibling for other listing needs (e.g., features or configurations).

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