aem_component_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explain whether credentials are required, what happens when no aliases or instances are provided, or any output characteristics. It is minimally transparent but lacks meaningful behavioral depth.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource, followed by a brief mention of the filters. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 tool with six parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain the relationship between aliases and instances, pagination behavior beyond the schema defaults, or what constitutes a valid invocation. An agent could select the tool but would lack important operational context.

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 descriptions for all parameters (100% coverage). The description only restates the existence of state and name filtering without adding new meaning, so it meets the baseline but does not enrich parameter understanding.

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'), a clear resource ('OSGi components'), the target ('AEM instances'), and optional filters ('state and name filtering'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like aem_component_details or aem_component_enable.

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 this is the list/read operation for OSGi components, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over aem_component_details, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites such as needing aliases or instances. Usage context is reasonably clear but leaves judgment to the agent.

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