list_component_families

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the output is automatically stored and returns a preview with an object ID for further reference, which is a behavioral trait beyond the schema. It also notes the return type (ComponentFamilyList model or error message). While it doesn't explicitly state read-only or error conditions, the 'lists' verb implicitly indicates a safe read operation, and the storage behavior is disclosed.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter and return information, then a short paragraph on output usage. It uses a structured format with :param and :returns tags, which aids scannability. While a bit lengthy, each sentence provides useful information without redundancy, earning a high score.

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 simple list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, parameter semantics, return type, and the handling of returned object IDs. It also explains that the output is stored for later use, which is essential for the agent to understand the tool's behavior. No significant gaps remain.

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 sole parameter (haystack_version) is thoroughly explained: 'Optional version of Haystack to use. Pass the same version as specified in the pipeline yaml's `dependencies` section for the `haystack-ai` package.' This adds crucial context beyond the raw schema, which only declares a nullable string. The description compensates fully for the 0% schema description coverage.

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's function: 'Lists all Haystack component families that are available on deepset.' The verb 'lists' plus the resource 'Haystack component families' makes the purpose specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (e.g., list_workspaces, list_pipelines) by targeting a unique resource category.

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 provides contextual guidance for the optional haystack_version parameter and explains how to use the returned object ID. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than stated, fitting the 'implied usage' criterion.

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