List design-system components

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the per-component fields returned (description, native element, variants, parts, import) and the monorepo aggregation behavior. It does not discuss ordering or size of results, but the output schema presumably covers shape.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then when to call it, then the monorepo edge case. Every sentence carries distinct, actionable information with no padding.

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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything needed: purpose, timing, and the monorepo scoping rule. Return-value explanation is a bonus since the output schema already exists.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `path` parameter is fully documented there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description restates the monorepo/`path` behavior (project of the file being edited) without adding syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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?

Specific verb ("List") and resource ("every component in the project design system"), plus a precise enumeration of what each entry contains. The scope (all components vs the single-item get_component or filtered search_components) is inferable, but the description never explicitly names those siblings as alternatives.

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?

"Call this before writing UI in this project" gives clear when-to-use context, and the monorepo scoping note tells the agent how to invoke it correctly across projects. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with search_components or get_component, so no exclusions/alternatives are stated.

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