get_custom_components

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

The description discloses return type (ComponentDefinitionList model or error string), automatic storage with object ID, and how to use the object ID for further operations. Since no annotations are provided, this carries the burden well, though it could mention idempotency or auth requirements.

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 first sentence states the purpose. Subsequent sentences add value about object store integration. Could be slightly shorter, but it's well-structured and front-loaded.

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 parameterless tool with no output schema, the description explains return model, error possibility, and object navigation. It's nearly complete but lacks distinction from sibling get_component_definition.

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?

No parameters exist, so schema coverage is 100% vacuously. Baseline is 3; description adds no param info but correctly focuses on output behavior.

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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Get a list of all installed custom components.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_component_definition (single component) and list_custom_component_installations (installations list).

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_component_definition, list_component_families). The description implies it's for fetching a list, but doesn't state exclusions or context.

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