list-components

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It states the operation but reveals nothing about return format, the size of an unfiltered 'all' listing, pagination, or how invalid category values are handled. For an unbounded enumeration, this is a meaningful gap.

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?

One sentence, eleven words, with the verb and scope front-loaded. Every word earns its place and there is zero filler.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should cover return-value expectations, but it says nothing about what a listing entry looks like or how results are bounded. For a simple one-optional-parameter tool it is adequate for invocation, yet it still leaves an agent guessing about response shape and scale.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the category parameter already has a clear description with examples. The tool description adds nothing beyond echoing 'optionally filtered by category', so it neither helps nor hurts — the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb with a clear resource and scope: 'List all available Design System components', with an optional category filter. The name and phrasing distinguish it from siblings like get-component and search-components, but it never explicitly names those alternatives, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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?

Usage is implied but not stated: 'List all available...' suggests a catalog-browsing purpose versus search-components for query-based discovery or get-component for a single item. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance, and the optional category filter is the only hint at scoping a call.

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