osf_components_list

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

The description mentions 'immediate' children, indicating it does not list nested components recursively. However, it does not disclose authentication needs, pagination, error handling, or behavior on invalid IDs. No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden.

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 a single, succinct sentence that efficiently conveys the core function. It is front-loaded and to the point.

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 operation with one parameter and an existing output schema, the description is adequate. It does not elaborate on return format or pagination, but the context of this low-complexity tool does not demand more detail.

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% with a clear parameter description. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond stating the action, so 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?

The description clearly states the tool lists immediate child components for an OSF project or component. It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like osf_contributors_list or osf_files_list by focusing on components.

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 like osf_projects_list or osf_project_get. No mention of prerequisites, conditions, or when not to use it.

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