list_all_components

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It describes the return structure (totalCount, lastScanned, byLayer, components), notes that byLayer covers the whole catalog, and warns that verbose can be 'large'. This provides sufficient transparency for a read-only operation.

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 concise, with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose and structures information logically: return format, then parameter guidance, then follow-up suggestion.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return structure. It covers the two parameters and provides a follow-up recommendation. For a tool with many siblings, it provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use it.

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?

Both parameters have 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents them. The description restates that layer filters the components list and verbose returns full metadata, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool lists the codebase catalog as compact summaries with specified fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_component_detail (which provides full data for one item) and get_architecture_overview.

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 explains when to use verbose mode and suggests following up with get_component_detail for full item data. It also mentions the layer filter. However, it does not explicitly exclude cases or compare with other sibling tools like search_components.

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