list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It indicates a read-only listing operation and mentions that output includes framework availability, but it does not describe potential limitations like pagination, sorting, or response size. For a simple list tool, this is adequate but leaves some behavioral aspects undisclosed.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the primary action and scope. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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?

Given the simple optional parameter (fully documented in schema) and no output schema, the description is sufficiently informative. It communicates the main purpose and output content (framework availability). Minor omissions like pagination or result ordering are acceptable for a list tool and do not hinder correct invocation.

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?

The schema fully documents the single optional 'framework' parameter with enum values and a clear description (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema, so 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 ('List') and a clear resource ('all available Galaxy UI components'), and adds a distinguishing detail ('with their availability per framework'). This clearly separates it from siblings like get_component (retrieves a specific component) and search_components (searches for 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose, making it obvious when to use it (when you need a complete list of components). However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or mention when not to use it (e.g., for a specific component or search), so it lacks explicit guidance but is contextually clear.

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