Search components by intent

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real context: the ranking is BM25 over names, descriptions, docs, props and variant values, and runs locally with no API key, corroborating and enriching the openWorldHint=false claim.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and intent framing, examples inline, and the usage condition placed last. No filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained. Purpose, ranking mechanism and usage condition are all covered; only explicit sibling routing is missing, which is a minor gap for a three-parameter discovery tool.

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%, so the schema already documents query, path (monorepo scoping) and limit. The description adds no syntax, format or scoping detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Find components') plus the intent-based framing with concrete query examples like "confirm a destructive action" and "text field with validation". It distinguishes itself from get_component implicitly by describing intent-based discovery, but never names list_components or get_component as the alternative.

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?

Gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use it when you do not know which component fits.' That clearly frames the discovery scenario, but it offers no when-not guidance and never names a sibling (e.g. use list_components for a full inventory) to route the agent between tools.

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