List components

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already conveys the read-only nature. The description adds only the default value for product, which is already documented in the input schema. It does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, return format, ordering, or limitations.

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 very short and front-loaded, avoiding unnecessary verbosity. However, the first sentence is a noun phrase rather than a complete actionable statement, and the second sentence duplicates schema information, so it is concise but slightly under-structured.

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 no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should at least clarify that a list of components is returned and what a 'component' is in this context. It lacks any information about response shape or edge cases, making it insufficient for confident invocation.

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 fully documents both parameters (limit and product) with descriptions including defaults. The description simply restates the product default and adds no new semantic meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline 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 identifies the resource (components) and scope (per product), making it distinguishable from sibling list tools. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'return', and the fragment 'Components for a product' is not a complete statement, so it stops short of a 5.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus other list tools among siblings (e.g., kiwi_list_plans, kiwi_list_runs). The only usage hint is the default behavior for the omitted product parameter, which is a parameter detail rather than an explicit usage guideline.

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