List components

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond annotations by explaining pagination behavior with limit/offset and the default state (returning just names unless include_metadata is true). This is useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotations.

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 two concise sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed by pagination behavior and the optional metadata flag. Every sentence earns its place, making it easy to scan.

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 read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it names the resource, the supported file types, the pagination mechanism, and distinguishes the two return modes (names vs. metadata). It doesn't specify the exact response format, but that is acceptable given the schema-defined parameters and the read-only context.

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% for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic context: it connects limit/offset to pagination for large libraries and gives concrete examples of metadata (part_count, pin_count) that include_metadata yields. This extra meaning justifies a 4.

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 states the specific verb 'List', the resource ('component/footprint names in an Altium library file'), and the scope ('(.PcbLib or .SchLib)'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_component or search_components, which target individual or filtered components rather than a full listing.

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 gives context on when to use pagination ('for large libraries') and when to enable include_metadata, but it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives like search_components or get_component. The usage guidance is implied rather than explicit, so an agent may need to inspect siblings to determine the right choice.

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