jekyll_component_list

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does address the key trait ('Read-only') plus the scope of the scan ('all detected'). It does not cover pagination, ordering, or what 'detected' is relative to (e.g. requires a prior scan), which are the remaining gaps.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return shape, then usage, then safety. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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, no-output-schema list tool this is close to sufficient: it says what is listed, what each entry exposes, when to use it, and that it is non-mutating. Minor omissions are whether results are paginated or ordered and any dependency on a prior project scan.

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. Schema coverage is 100% and the empty object schema is self-explanatory.

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 and resource (list reusable components) and describes the shape of what comes back: paths to Liquid, SCSS, JavaScript, docs and examples. It reads as distinct from jekyll_component_get by virtue of 'list all', though it never names that sibling 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?

'Use to discover existing components before creating new ones' gives clear situational context and ties the tool to the jekyll_component_create workflow. It stops short of naming jekyll_component_get as the alternative for a single known component, so no explicit exclusion is provided.

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