list_components

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' correctly signals a non-mutating read, and the note about dependency declaration adds useful context. However, it does not say whether an unfiltered call returns the entire registry, whether results are paginated or bounded in size, or what a component entry looks like — meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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, the core action front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by motivating the tool. No restatement of the name or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must convey the return shape, and it doesn't — an agent cannot tell whether results are names, IDs, or objects with categories, which it needs before calling add_component. The input side is adequately covered, so this is a partial gap rather than a failure.

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 both parameters are documented enums, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds only that the filters are combinable ('and/or'), leaving the behavior of an omitted filter (return everything?) unstated.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource ('List available reusable components from the registry') and scopes it by naming both filters. It is distinguishable from add_component/remove_component by name and by the 'list' verb, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 second sentence explains what components are for ('can be declared as dependencies instead of inlining code'), which implies the why of listing them, but the description never states when to call this versus add_component, remove_component, or design_list_* preset tools. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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