primitives_list_components

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state 'read-only' or note any side effects. It also does not describe return format or behavior. It is minimally transparent but adequate for a simple list operation.

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, front-loaded sentence: 'Get all available Radix primitives components'. Every word is necessary and no redundant information is included. It is appropriately concise.

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 low complexity (no parameters, no output schema), the description is sufficiently complete. It explains the main function, and the output (a list of components) is implied. It could mention that the result is a list, but this is not critical due to the simplicity.

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?

There are 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to clarify parameter meanings as there are none. It correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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's purpose: 'Get all available Radix primitives components'. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Radix primitives components'), and the inclusion of 'primitives' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'themes_list_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 implies usage: it is for listing primitives components, as opposed to themes components. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state any exclusions. The context is clear but not fully explicit.

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